I don’t understand how the ruling doesn’t take effect for 180 days. If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, and the government had no authority to pass such a law in the first place. Where does the court get the authority to grant the government an unconstitutional power for 180 days? What would stop the court from declaring a law unconstitutional, but giving the government a year to fix it? Or ten years?
Divermedic, the Supremes have done a similar thing, in Grutter V. Bollinger, stating that race-based affirmative action in law college acceptance criteria is wrong, but that 25 years, per Justice O’Conner, may be a good time to stop it.
What excuse they may have had in 15 more years (the case was heard in 2003) may be moot, since the Univ. of Texas is undergoing a case right now claiming reverse discrimination. So affirmative action for diversity’s sake may have had only a decade of life.
Considering that teh last attempt at a carry law came within three votes of passing, AND that the pro-carry side will be reminding teh anti-carry side that if teh court doesn;t like the law and feels it’s inadequate, they end up, de facto, with Constitutional Carry, I think a reasonable permit law will come out.
Of course, they may try to go with a “Discretionary Freedom” law like MD, NY, or CA, but I suspect that’ll go over like a lead zepplin on retrial as well.
Illinois has already got a good shall-issue bill that just barely didn’t pass the past couple years, and apparently it took some serious Chicago-style arm-twisting to keep those last few “no” votes in line.
With some form of carry now mandated the “agin’ it” faction don’t have a lot of leverage to bugger up the existing shall-issue bill. Any “no” that was on the fence has some political cover.
The 9th Circuit just heard oral arguments in challenges to California’s and Hawaii’s discretionary “may-issue” permit policies.
The case for retaining discretionary issue (that has amounted to non-issue in many CA counties and the entire state of Hawaii) wasn’t very strong by all accounts.
The 2nd just upheld Sullivan in NY, but the reasoning resembled the dissent in this ruling, very strained.
At any rate, the threat of immediately being sued over a “may-issue” scheme that is “no-issue in practice” like CA, NY, and HI currently are might also be a stick to convince the hold-outs in the Illinois legislature to just give in to the shall-issue bill currently in play.
Matthew, I’m thinking of the Wollard v. Maryland case requiring a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a handgun might wind up driving “May Issue” to the Supreme Court, since we have two Federal Courts disagreeing on the same thing.
Unless TPTB in Maryland can be talked into taking their lumps and not appealing. Remember, Heller wouldn’t have made it to the Court if DC Mayor Adrian Fenty hadn’t insisted on appealing all the way up the chain, hoping for a reversal.
Of course, how long it would take to get to the court and what the makeup of the court would be by then is anybody’s guess.
I don’t disagree about the circuit split. Since the rulings against “bearing” being fundamental rest, in my opinion, on the lower courts telling Scalia what he meant, I can see the current court expediting review.