BREAKING: IL AG Madigan Files for a 30-Day Stay on CCW

IL AG Lisa Madigan (courtesy

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed for a 30-day stay (extension) of the 7th Circuit of Appeals’ injunction giving the legislature 180 days to pass a concealed carry law or face invalidation of the state’s current ban on concealed carry. [Click here for the pdf.] In other words, Madigan’s trying to buy time for Governor Quinn to modify/kill the concealed carry bill recently passed by the Illinois state legislature. That bill isn’t ideal; the list of prohibited places makes Utah’s alcohol restrictions seem libertine and the various fees will have a distinctly disinhibitory effect. But there’s a lot to like (e.g. no Chicago carve-out, “safe harbor” provisions and restaurant carry). Here’s hoping the 7th Circuit will tell Madigan to FOAD and instruct Quinn to piss or get off the pot. So to speak.


  1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Told ya.

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      Can I call ’em or can I call ’em? Now if could just pick the Lotto. lol

  2. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Oh, so she’s not going to let this sail through unimpeded?

    This is my surprised face.

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      I wonder if it’s really coming from her or from the governor. If the governor were to ask her to file for a 30-day delay, could she really refuse?

      1. avatar PavePusher says:

        Sure she could. Probably get fired too, so you know she won’t. That kind doesn’t know how to let go with their lips….

        1. avatar csmallo says:

          The governor can’t fire an elected office holder.

      2. avatar csmallo says:

        Why couldn’t she? She was elected by the voters, not appointed by the governor.

  3. avatar Lars says:

    She already got an extension. The Illinois Congress just started it’s summer recess and just passed a reasonable CCW bill that I think most Illinois citizens can be happy with. (No Home Rule!) What does she think will change?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      She has an extension on her time to file a petition for review with SCOTUS, not on the time the injunction will issue from the Circuit Court of Appeals. Someone advise as to process in Illinois: if Quinn doesn’t sign, does the bill become law without his signature? If so, that may be the point of the request–political cover for Quinn who doesn’t want to sign and probably can’t veto.

  4. avatar William says:

    30 days? Plenty time to scare up a school shooting! EEEAAAGGH!

    1. avatar Hobbez says:


      1. avatar moe says:

        School’s out for the summer?

  5. avatar Avid Reader says:

    At this point, Madigan is chiefly concerned with maintaining her political viability so she can run for higher office. Quinn is the accidental governor. She wants to replace him and may challenge him in the primary. So it’s all about Lisa now.

  6. avatar Fred says:

    Is she showcasing the kind of bed she would like to mandate for all her constituents? Of course a change of scale will be needed.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Change of scale? I would expect something a little more Procrustean.

  7. avatar jkp says:

    I see — she’s claiming that since the Governor has 60 days under the Illinois Constitution to review bills passed by the legislator, that she’s ‘merely’ asking for the time to allow the Gov to perform his ‘constitutional duty’.

    Her claims of a ‘harm’ though are specious, as the experience in Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont demonstrate.

  8. avatar Troutslayer says:

    Does anyone know what the current maximum penalty is for concealing and carrying an otherwise lawfully owned hand gun in the land of Lincoln? Not that I would ever do such a thing. Heck, couldn’t even if I wanted to. You see, I lost all of my firearms in a boating accident yesterday….

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Dude, I feel your pain…
      That’s really tragic.

    2. avatar Hobbez says:

      Yes, yes. Mine too. If the cops ever come to the door, anyway.

      “I’m sorry Sir, I had my conoe tip over on the deep end of the lake just last week. I had every firearm that I have ever bought with me too! What a mistake of judgement. No you can’t come in, have a nice day Officer.”

  9. avatar stevec says:

    One of the reasons I think this was done was so that home rule municipalities in IL can be allowed more time to push through AWB and magazine limits. Once Gov. Quinn signs the bill, they cannot enact any such limits after a 10 day period once the ink dries.

    Given the timeframe right now, they wouldn’t have enough time to easily try to infringe on law abiding citizens rights.

    If this stay is granted, home rule units would have potentially 44 days to do so.

    Fucking clowns.

  10. avatar DrVino says:

    What a circus……….

    But, seriously, did anyone get a printed version of that PDF to all the gangbangers shooting each other up in Chicago?….
    They really need to get the memo….

  11. avatar Matt says:

    The same sort of thing happened here in Maryland.

  12. avatar littlegunguy says:

    Im sick of Illinois scumb. Blogojevich, Obama, Lincoln, Hillary Clinton, Durbin, Quinn, Cullerton, both Madigans and thats just what comes to mind off hand. I live in Illinois and it is a shit hole. I live 30 minutes from the city and I wouldn’t travel there unless I absolutely had to. Its a dump. Can’t wait to move to a place that thinks like human beings instead of like Scumbags. If Madigan gets in as Gov, I’m gone… I want my Country back… NO MORE DEMOCRATS, NO MORE DEMOCRATS, NO MORE DEMOCRATS… CAN YOU SAY IT? NO MORE DEMOCRATS…PASS THE WORD

    1. avatar mp504 says:

      You have your wish, there are no more demo’s. They have become the defacto COMMUNIST party. Look at the way in which they operate. Straight from the Karl Marx handbook on influencing political elections.

      But they are NOT the only ones. The Republicans are doing a good job of playing this game also.

      1. avatar littlegunguy says:

        Agreed, but if its a crap shoot. I’ll take my chances with a Republican. Maybe the call should be I want my country back, CONSERVATIVES NEEDED…

  13. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    this is procedural. she has to file to make it look like she is doing her job. she filed for an extension with the SCOTUS and has until june 23rd/24th to file the appeal of the two cases before the 7th that prompted all of this (Shepard and Moore). Quinn was going to wait until after the 9th, see what happens and then blame her. This gives him time, attempts to avoid the “cliff” and then she can file with scotus and force his hand since the law will go into effect automatically if he doesn’t veto.

    I hope Judge Posner b!tch slaps her and says the state has had enough time.

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      Who cares? Illinois is dead to me. The real question is: Remove her glasses, and MILF or NO MILF?

      1. avatar niceguns says:

        Close my eyes and she’s a Mild.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Doggy style? If so, I agree. That would be the only way. Humiliate the rich little Progressive girl. Make her bark like a dog. 🙂

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          If that’s what she wants you aren’t humilating her.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      I think she’s going to get slapped.

      The original 180 day court-mandated period for the legislature and governor to create legislation that was within the boundaries of issues set forth by the court was extremely generous. The legislature had plenty of time, it was the legislature who wasted the time given.

      Second, there’s no proof (or even a well crafted supposition) that Madigan would prevail in litigating the issue after any granted stay would expire. What’s she going to argue? That the legislature would not have passed this particular piece of legislation if they had more time? That’s not going to fly. That the governor needs more time to study the issue? All he can do is veto or sign the bill.

      Given the case law and the legal rules, I don’t see the court granting this stay.

  14. avatar dwb says:

    if he vetos it Jun 10 after the legislature adjourns, does that force her to appeal?

  15. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I never saw this coming! /sarc

  16. avatar KevinMA says:

    So when you’re denying people their rights (SAFE Act), it’s an emergency measure that gets shoved through in the middle of the night. However, when restoring rights you need ample time to properly evaluate the bill. Really puts faith in government.

  17. avatar Buzzlefutt says:

    The leaders of Illinois do seem like they try their best to not give the people what they want.
    And it’s not just on gun rights. About the only thing they do offer is increased taxes and fees.

  18. avatar tdiinva says:

    It is unlikely that the Court will grant her request. The Illinois legislature had plenty of time to pass a bill to make the deadline.

    To answer J&D’s question and to show her a great deal of disrespect. Defininate MILF with or without the glasses.

  19. avatar JPT says:

    @troutslayer….If they throw the book at you its a felony with mandatory 1yr prison stint.

  20. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “the various fees will have a distinctly disinhibitory effect”

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means, Bob.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      My thought exactly. Kind of sliding over into double negatives here.

  21. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    a better question might be what ISRA or NRA plans to do since they were the litigants. . . . do they agree to a stay or do they file a quick response indicating the state has had sufficient time? I suspect they will challenge this notion and force the issue for another ruling from Posner, which given the time to schedule a hearing acts as a defacto “stay” until the hearing, although in reality, without an official stay, June 9th kicks in and blammo! I doubt Daddy Mad Madigan will organize the legislature to intervene here and argue against a stay, too.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      SAF’s response is up already – complete legal b!tch slap of Lisa. Quinn is gonna regret his public pronouncements via twitter and his spokesmen . . . .

      1. avatar slackcoder says:

        Smack! Love it!

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    It’s 50-50 as to whether she gets her extra time. If I was on the bench, my response would be “you had six months to act and claim you need seven because you spent five months d1cking around? FOAD.” But I’m not on the bench and judges tend to be more reasonable than I am.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Yeah but she is dealing with Richard Posner. He is kind of an A-Hole like you. (complement)

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      I guess Posner is a nicer guy than you.

  23. avatar dshim83 says:

    Just so folks know, the motion was granted.

    Making lemonade out of lemons though,

    “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

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      How about this lemon: the Governor vetoes, the legislature fails to override, and the AG is forced to appeal to SCOTUS to prevent crime from going rampant in Chicago. Or whatever – I am sure there are cleverer scenarios one can come up with, each more sour than the other.

      1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

        Which is EXACTLY what will happen. Now as far as Amy is concerned doesn’t she already have a pending motion before scotus?

        1. avatar Dave357 says:

          Fundamentally, it looks that unless the legislature steps up to the plate when the time comes, it won’t end well.

          Could someone from Illinois, please, explain how the amendatory veto works? One would imagine the regular veto needs 2/3 in each chamber to override, but what about the amendatory veto? What are the options there?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email