Getting each house of the Illinois General Assembly to pass a concealed carry law with lopsided margins looks to have been the easy part. The harder part, in many ways, is going to be getting the law implemented.
It just got a bit harder today thanks to the machinations of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She has filed a motion to stay the 7th Circuit's 180 day mandate to have a concealed carry law in place for another 30 days. She gives as her rationale that it would give Gov. Pat Quinn "a reasonable time to fulfill his constitutional duties." The Illinois Constitution gives the governor 60 days after a bill's passage to consider and sign it. That amount of time is one of the longest in the nation according to the National Governor's Association.
Madigan argues that the additional time is necessary to avoid having no state law in place which she says was the court's original intent of the 180-day stay of its mandate.
The expiration of the stay on June 9 without a substitute law in place would present a significant harm, not to the defendants in an individualized or official capacity, but to the People and Constitution of Illinois. The current stay of this Court’s mandate expires in less than one week, significantly shortening the sixty-day period constitutionally afforded the Governor to consider and sign legislation into law. Expiration of the stay on June 9 will either eliminate that constitutionally-provided period entirely or create a gap in state firearm regulation. These represent unnecessary harms to the public interest.Madigan goes on to argue that 30 days is only for the "orderly completion of the legislative process and is not intended for purposes of delay." If this is indeed the case, one might well ask why Madigan isn't asking for 51 days or the full amount of time left for Gov. Quinn to either sign or veto the bill under the Illinois Constitution.
Madigan concludes her argument by saying she recognizes that a delay of a constitutional right imposes a burden upon the plaintiffs but that is outweighed by the public's interest in not having a period where no law is in effect.
It should be noted that Madigan still has another 21 days left on her extension in which to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court appealing this case. There is no word on what she intends to do regarding that.
UPDATE: Despite it being highly irregular and that a stay would seem to violate many of the Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan got her order staying the mandate of the court for another 30 days.
1. MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS, filed on June 3, 2013, by counsel for the appellees.Sebastian has more on the opposing motions here.
2. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter, Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and Illinois Carry.
3. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MARY SHEPARD AND ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay mandate for additional 30 days is GRANTED. This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted. form
So does she get the additional time automatically just because she asked for it or does the court have to grant this in the next few days?
ReplyDeleteAlso, 60<180... guess the good governor should have made sure this was passed within 120 days if he was so concerned. It's an entirely unconvincing argument. Their counterparts in NY shove through legislation and sign it within hours when it fits their purposes. The constitutional duty argument is so disingenuous that the court should be offended by it. If the governor can't make a decision in a week on a bill that's been heading his way for 6 months, he isn't fit to lead.
@Anon: It is my understanding that the 7th Circuit has the discretion to grant this or not. Just because Lisa asked for it doesn't mean she is going to get it.
DeleteIllinois gives the governor the longest period of time in which to sign legislation if it is in session and the 2nd longest if it is not in session. Most states give around 10 days to sign or veto.
One would hope that the 7th tells Ms Madigan, politely, to get bent! The absence of law on a particular subject isn't necessarily an emergency.
ReplyDeletethis is a delay tactic, but not to help Gov Quinn. Lisa is running for his job and doesn't want to commit professional malpractice. If she didn't ask for additional time, Quinn would blame her on June 10th for all of the evils of Chicago. This way, she gives him "time" and he loses the argument of June 10th. What is more interesting is the expiration of time in the Shepard/Moore cases. Someone on Lisa's staff cannot read a calendar. If she doesn't file an appeal by her deadline, Quinn still would have time and can veto it and wait for the veto session. She gets blamed by downstate democrats and loses the primary. If she does file an appeal, she gets blamed by downstate democrats and loses the primary. A far better move would be to have asked for a 15 day extension, forced Quinn's hand, and then blamed him when she filed the appeal and argue about her professional obligations, blah, blah blah.
ReplyDeleteI am sure Daddy Mike Madigan is not happy right now . . . . .
-Dirk Diggler
Ridiculous that this clown of a governor gets 60 days when the President only gets 10 days to act on a law
ReplyDeleteI could write the response brief myself, and the result will be the same: they will give her the delay.
ReplyDeleteNot suggesting I am qualified to be in Gura's camp. Just saying that in this situation, I (or anyone) might as well write it. The result will be the same.
I think she will get her delay.
Unbelievable the games these political folks play this is nothing but a campaign move for her upcoming run at governor like seriously whether he signs it or not they have enuff votes to over ride the veto if yes does veto it so whats there to think bout here she just wants it to look like she actually did smthng and didnt just sit back and let the bill pass what a crock of ____.
ReplyDeleteShe was granted the stay. WTF???
ReplyDelete