- McDonald’s: Federal complaint says company is joint employer
- T-Mobile settlement: $90M for cell phone bill cramming
- Shelter Care Ministries gets $30,000 grant
- Even more dead bees?
- Holiday travel: 98.6 million plan getaway, most on record
- Scam artists posing as utility reps, demanding payment
- Holiday mailing deadlines approach, Rockford Post Office warns
- Hispanics more than half of all renters, yet most are uninsured
- Pet Talk: Healthy pets make for a happy holiday
- Man pleads guilty but mentally ill in 2013 murder
State attorney general files for rehearing of concealed carry cases
Online Staff Report
CHICAGO — Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) announced Jan. 8 that she has filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in lawsuits challenging the Illinois laws that prevent the carrying of ready-to-use firearms in public.
The Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing “en banc” is a request for all of the judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case after a December decision by a three-judge panel of the court held that the state laws barring carrying ready-to-use firearms in public are unconstitutional.
Madigan’s petition was filed in lawsuits brought against the State of Illinois by Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, which allege that Illinois’ restrictions on the carrying of ready-to-use weapons in public violates their Second Amendment rights. The laws had previously been upheld by two separate federal district courts in Illinois.
In its December decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set a 180-day deadline for the Illinois legislature to draft and enact new laws relating to carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. The petition for rehearing by the Attorney General does not affect that deadline.
Madigan issued the following statement regarding her decision to seek a rehearing: “In ruling that Illinois must allow individuals to carry ready-to-use firearms in public, the 7th Circuit Court’s decision goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts. Based on those decisions, it is appropriate to ask the full 7th Circuit to review this case and consider adopting an approach that is consistent with the other appellate courts that have addressed these issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.”
Posted Jan. 8, 2013