The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 22, 2013, 11:09 AM   #401
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 164
Weak legislation

HB997 could be much worse. But I'd rather see constitutional carry than HB997.

Nevermind. I thought the bill allowed police to detain an OCer without reasonable suspicion until I looked through the bill and found this:

Section 70 - (e)
If a law enforcement officer initiates an investigative
stop, including but not limited to a traffic stop, of a
licensee who is carrying a concealed firearm, the licensee
shall disclose as soon as reasonably possible to the officer
that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm under
this Act. Disclosure may be accomplished by oral notification
or by providing or displaying the license to carry a concealed
firearm to the officer.

I doubt Chicago police will accept your oral notification, though.

Last edited by Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret; February 22, 2013 at 01:46 PM.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:23 AM   #402
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
I don't see how things have changed substantially for you guys in Illinois from yesterday, but maybe there is some psychological boost from this, or its disheartening for the antis in Chicago - I don't know.

The opinion that Al expressed early on was that even if the court heard the case en banc they weren't going to overturn the panel's decision.

So that leaves the last issue of appealing to the Supreme Court, but still, I don't see how anything has substantially changed.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:30 AM   #403
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
This thread could really go off track with why constitutional carry is better or worse, and I don't want to give CHicago dems any ideas, but they could pass their own Chicago ordinances that coud say for instance - no semi automatics (revolvers only) as Judge Davis suggested, if you remember.. or ordinances that prohibit a firearm within 50 feet of any place that sells alcohol (every gas station and convienience store), they could put into place an onerous permitting system ala NYC... Those laws could carry $10,000 fines and 6 mo jail time and / or both. They could pass a law that says you're allowed to carry in general (with a permit) but you cannot have a firearm on public transit...

And at least 4 other municipalities like Oak Park, Wilmette etc.. could follow suit.

As cool as constitutional carry might sound to some people, it would make staying in compliance with the myriad laws a nightmare, and many law abiding gun owners eventually would get snagged by the odd patchwork of disparate city ordinances.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:41 AM   #404
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 413
I suppose they could do a lot things. But if they do nothing, but they know the clock is ticking and if the anti-gunners can't come together, it'll be great in early June. I think the onerous regulations can be held up or defeated.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA
motorhead0922 is online now  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:51 AM   #405
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 164
Quote:
I don't see how things have changed substantially for you guys in Illinois from yesterday
Its called 'momentum'. It cannot be quantified. It wasn't there yesterday but its here now.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 12:02 PM   #406
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
From the dissent:

Quote:
...it’s reasonably clear at this point that the standard is more demanding than rational-basis review and less demanding than strict scrutiny.
How can someone be a judge, and be that thick-headed that they only just realize NOW that the direction from the Supreme Court is not to use Rational Basis ?

Hamilton is either like Rip VanWinkle or he's an ostrich.

Still, it's gratifying when you hear them in their own words concede a point. Why a right as basic as the right to exist - the right to survive and defend one's self doesn't warrant strict scrutiny is another issue. IMO, Hamilton, Rovner, Wood and Williams don't want a society where individuals can fend for themselves therefor they don't think strict scrutiny should apply. Which is illogical and another way of saying "we don't want people with guns so we reject any logical argument or anything that may say otherwise" They're rejecting based on their preference not on the logic of the argument.

This isn't news, their anti-2A arguments constitute a house of cards and what we're seeing is Gura take apart their house of cards one card at a time. The wheels of justice grind slowly, (I was going crazy waiting to hear something in Moore and I'm still going crazy waiting for the fricken oral arguments in Kwong!) But what I think we're seeing is the anti-gunners house of cards collapsing in slow motion.

I don't see how may issue and good cause restrictions can stand given that self defense is a right that extends beyond the home.

I think the new frontier for the antis is going to be instituting onerous permitting fees and mandatory insurance, things of that nature - throwing up any obstacles that can concievably withstand contitutional muster.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 12:07 PM   #407
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Here the Document http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/Q00LR0HM.pdf

My read was this is far from a good win... The text is disturbing in that it spells out a long list of places where the court believes restrictions can be imposed. It also spells out that the 2A in its opinion only exist for the right of self defense and that in its opinion the 2A does not apply to militia style weapons.

I don't know what to say... Its kind of a win but not so much....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 12:15 PM   #408
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 357
Quote:
HB997 could be much worse. But I'd rather see constitutional carry than HB997.
We need a bill with pre emption. No bill passed means may issue for cook county and Chicago. Effectively it will be no issue, absurdly expensive fees. Ridiculous rules etc etc.

No bill at all would mean very little change for the people of Cook and Chicago. No one will get a permit other than the elite few.
Davey is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 12:34 PM   #409
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
Quote:
I don't know what to say... Its kind of a win but not so much....
This is the dissenting opinion. Posner's opinion was much better
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 12:58 PM   #410
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
I don't know why the dissenters felt compelled to spell out a list of things gun control politicians in Illinois can do post Moore. Maybe they realized that Chicago has legal minds like Paul Castigliano who don't have a clue, so they decided the anti-gun faction there needed help.

Besides being inappropriate IMO, they seem to give some bad advice citing Kachalsky as giving governments the right to issue based on "proper cause". Not ony that but they are saying it in the section where they are discussing that Moore leaves the State a good deal of constitutional room for reasonable public safety measures.

Posner says in thew majority opinion:

Quote:
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald

this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

'The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
How do you sqaure that with "good cause" ?

Only people who have had an overt threat against them ever get car jacked, or raped, mugged, robbed ?

Only people who transport diamonds and money or a similar occupation are in danger of being car jacked or robbed?

Only those people have the need of self defense, therefore only those people are allowed to exercise that right?

Plenty of evidence in society that this is not so. Probably a hundred true stories on this forum alone refuting that assumption.

I mean, if the dissenting judges want to argue that point - that's OK, they could argue it in the section where they list why they think the panel's dicidion was wrong. But they're putting this out in the section where they are discussing what Illinois can still do.

It seems to me that they have a flawed understanding of what Moore really says and the ramifications of the decision.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 01:14 PM   #411
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 235
The dissenters are seriously upset about this, so yes, I'm willing to believe at least part of their actions are derived from a desire to strike back at this ruling, weaken it as much as they can, etc.

It is going to be a slam dunk that the state can dictate time, place and manner restrictions. So, even if the dissenters didn't spell out some, the list will be common enough knowledge soon.

It's the next battleground -- exactly how long a list can we possibly get away with?

It helps to think of the antis as petulant children. They're crying, whining, pouting and throwing temper tantrums. If they don't get their way, they'll take their ball and go home.

But in the end, freedoms are growing in Illinois, so it's a Good Thing.
speedrrracer is online now  
Old February 22, 2013, 06:18 PM   #412
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Thank you Mac59 and Lugar_carbine...

You guys have the right info a google search just does not come up with. 1,000,000 different web sites - it pulls up and nothing but junk!

Glad to see in print that Madigan is denied and once again wasting MY money with her chess moves. If she is smart, she will embrace it and help with the new legislation instead of showing her feathers like she is supposed to if she is to ever chase after the Governor's position.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 07:05 PM   #413
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 46
SAF posted a news release today... the Moore ruling stands!

Does the 180 day clock run from the original ruling, or start now?
Dan F is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 07:52 PM   #414
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 203
The 180 days runs out in June. Hearings on a new law are ongoing in Springfield. The proposal on the table, as I understand it, is a NRA backed "shall issue" plan with permits being issued by the Illinois State Police, and no opt out for Chicago--state pre-emption.

The only thing left to find out is whether Madigan will file for cert. I don't know when her time runs on that, but she had originally stated her intent to do so. Obviously, if a bill is signed into law, any such petition would be moot. Further, filing for cert will not stop the clock on the 180 days for the injunction unless she files for and gets a stay.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 08:32 PM   #415
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
The 180 day clock would not have stopped unless the rehearing was granted and the decision was vacated. Jun e 6th is when the stay expires and the injunction will be in full force.

The 90 day clock for petition for a grant of cert begins today. The petition must be filed by May 20th, if my count is correct. Here's the counter point: Once the petition for cert is filed, Madigan can ask for a continuance of the stay... and it will be granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BGutzman View Post
My read was this is far from a good win... The text is disturbing in that it spells out a long list of places where the court believes restrictions can be imposed. It also spells out that the 2A in its opinion only exist for the right of self defense and that in its opinion the 2A does not apply to militia style weapons.

I don't know what to say... Its kind of a win but not so much....
Um, no. The "Court" is not saying this. That is what the dissenters are saying for their reasons to uphold the motion for the en banc rehearing. It is mostly a rehash of the reasons used in Kachalsky.

There was one thing they added that I thought was hilarious! They used the problematic shooting of innocents, by NYC cops, when they indiscriminately and en masse shot the BG.

The problem with that data-point is that we can empirically show that the police are not very good shots. There are literally dozens of such cases.

However, when a defensive shooter (Good Guy = GG) engages a BG outside the home and on the street, the Good Guy uses less shots and makes more direct hits. Add to that, that the GG does not engage the BG en masse with a bunch of other shooters. It is almost always done alone. So even if a lot of shots occur, it is not hundreds of shots as most often occur with massed police forces.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 11:06 PM   #416
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
In the dissent they cite a few news articles on the NY shootings..

It's not like those sources were some expert assessment of the event or some emprical treatment by criminologists or anything .

Was that material presented by defendents as part of the case or did the dissenting judges just decide to go reference that stuff themselves (maybe it was just Hamilton, not the whole gang, I don't know).
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 12:52 AM   #417
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,276
Lugar, that was what made it so hilarious. This outside of any judicial notice of the case. It was inserted to make a point that was never brought up!

Over at MDShooters.com, esqappellate informed us that according to FRAP 41, Madigan has 7 days to file a stay of mandate pending cert.

If she doesn't file for the stay by next week, she will not be filing a petition to the SCOTUS.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 01:58 AM   #418
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGutzman
My read was this is far from a good win... The text is disturbing in that it spells out a long list of places where the court believes restrictions can be imposed. It also spells out that the 2A in its opinion only exist for the right of self defense and that in its opinion the 2A does not apply to militia style weapons.
However, Miller essentially said the 2A applies ONLY to weapons suitable for the militia. And in Heller Justice Scalia wrote that the 2A applies to a right to keep and bear those firearms "in common use." That most certainly includes semi-automatic pistols with capacities greater than 10 (or 7) rounds, and it certainly includes AR-15 rifles and carbines with 30-round magazines.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 09:12 AM   #419
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Quote:
But in the end, freedoms are growing in Illinois, so it's a Good Thing
Yes, I do feel the momentum!

Now, what the details are of course remains to be seen, but I am expecting something (Chicago area) similar to when firearms were recently allowed to be registered and owned in Chicago in your home- but not your garage.

Not a whole lot of hard work here. The ordinance was not rewritten, it was just edited (actually lines crossed out and few sections added or excluded). Of note, it had/has:

specific makes that are banned
forms limiting quantity and annual registering of firearms
fee requirement and Certified completion of Firearms Course requirement
finger printing and photo id for Chicago Firearms Permit taken at police station

Now, my point being, they already have a pretty good block on who is getting these permits by having course and fee requirements. This amounting to time and several hundreds of dollars will exclude a lot.

So in addition to above, I think the big area of debate will be the banned areas of carry!

They can add AW bans of AR type, but these are already banned in Cook county and magazine capacity is also already limited to 12 (Cook County) and 10 (Chicago), so that is not an issue.

Just don't allow in schools(National debate at moment) and places of assembly. Not in liquor stores? There is one on every corner, so that sounds a bit ridiculous. I would turn to look at other states for their take on this.
What about the el and buses or on the Metra commuter train? I realize Chicago has a lot more intricacies than downstate, where driving around a little town in your pickup is about the only contact you will have. (And we used to have hunting acreage downstate and a pickup, so I am not being prejudice!)

So I think Madigan (AG-IL) and Rahm (M-Chicago) should sit down and have a little meeting sooner rather than later.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 10:29 AM   #420
rts99
Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
Dissenting Delusions

In my read of the dissenting opinion it seems clear to me that these judges still reject the individual right of self defense and right to life. Their list of excluded places was merely a list of all public places plus a list of some private property. It's essentially a list of all places outside the home where most people assemble - for work, commerce, recreation, etc. So, according to them, the only place you can have a gun anyway is inside your home. I'm sure this is ONLY due to the McDonald ruling, without this they wouldn't relent there either. So they obviously contend that public safety is superior to right to life. Who do they think the public is? A collection of non-individuals? A collection of individuals bereft of right to life? (A collection of individuals bereft of right to life are called victims.) The important question is where does an individual have a right to life? Only in their home? That's absurd.

The SC ruled in Heller that individuals have a right to defend their lives by themselves. The question these carry cases pose is where this right exists. And only in one's home simply isn't a defendable argument.

The good news is that the Posner's ruling prevails. On to the Supreme Court.
rts99 is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 10:13 PM   #421
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
It's essentially a list of all places outside the home where most people assemble - for work, commerce, recreation, etc. So, according to them, the only place you can have a gun anyway is inside your home.
This is what concerns me. For example, Georgia used to have a law prohibiting carry at "public gatherings." What's a public gathering? Pretty much anything an official decides it is.

That could be a restaurant, sporting event, political rally, or just three of us talking on the street. The dissenting opinion seems to have gotten that idea. By calling a place "sensitive" under the Heller dicta, you could ban carry quite easily and still keep the mantle of respecting the Constitution.

Keep a close eye out for rhetoric along those lines.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 11:08 AM   #422
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Is not the nature of law to encapsulate all the possibilities and address them?

I don't buy the dissenters just offering up a vague line of "public gatherings". Then we could offer a line where it is legal to conceal carry anywhere (outside of public assembly - which is defined in the zoning code) that you feel you are in danger. Two can play this game.

Just look at WI and be done with it!

Quote:
Concealed Carry and Schools

No one, including a concealed-carry licensee, can carry a firearm in or on the grounds of a school
"School grounds" include athletic fields, school buildings, recreation areas and any property owned, used or operated for school administration
It is a misdemeanor to carry firearms within 1,000 feet of school grounds without a concealed-carry license
Firearms may not be carried into public college and university buildings if the institution has posted a ban on concealed-carry weapons
Concealed Carry and Taverns

A "tavern" is any establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises
It is illegal for concealed-carry license holders to be armed in taverns if they have consumed alcohol
A license holder faces up to 9 months in prison and a $10,000 fine if caught armed and intoxicated
Concealed Carry and Government Buildings

Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a police station, sheriff‘s office, state patrol station, or the office of a Division of Criminal Investigation special agent of DOJ
Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a county, state, or federal courthouse
Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom if court is in session.
Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a prison, jail, house of correction, or secured correctional facility

There, I just did it for them. Just decide about public transportation? Anyone know what other major cities do for this.? I am not saying either way, but I think it would be similar to assembly so would be banned as well and probably for the best.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 11:23 AM   #423
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
No that wont work because then you will get some crap like. Cant carry near a public road or whatever. I get that they could be specific but the antis have some special kind of brain damage or something.. They will always seek the widest possible prohibition for anyone who is not one of them.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 10:23 PM   #424
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
Anti-gun politicians in Illinois have begun to construct their gun control laws somewhat along the lines laid out by the diseenting opinion.

I guess some justices on CA7 like giving pro-bono legal advice disguised as a dissenting opinion, at least for causes that they believe in.

From what I understand, the anti-gunners (mostly Chicago machine politicians) buried the NRA bill in committee and have put forth a shell bill which doesn't say much of anything but will be filled in with amendments.

So anyway, here is an amendment that looks an awfull lot like what Tom Servo talked about, with the exception that there is a bit of a qualifier on what a gathering is:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...ID=12&Session=

There are further amendments which prohibit carrying a handgun just about everyplace other than your own property:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...ID=12&Session=

Other places that are also prohibited:

your vehicle
restaurants
truck stops
any place that has video gaming to include but not limited to casinos
church, temple, or other place of worship
zoos
parks
amusement parks
museums
schools, colleges, daycare
state government buildings
libraries
hospitals and mental health clinics
public transportation

Combine these with the exclusion on private property I can't really see anywhere an Illinois citizen can carry.

Maybe walking or riding a bike down the street. As long as you just ride on the street and don't actually arrive at a destination.

As far as I can tell, this collection of amendments re-create the current Illinois UUW law in scope and totality, but they do it one explicitly named location or type of location at a time.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Last edited by Luger_carbine; February 25, 2013 at 10:43 PM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 10:38 PM   #425
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 365
Each one of their amendments references Heller, McDonald and Moore:

Quote:
The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) has recognized
that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
does not confer an unlimited right and that states may prohibit
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places. The Supreme Court
stated in the Heller decision: "Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings . . ."

The Supreme Court also noted in a footnote referencing this statement in the Heller decision that: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

This recognition was reiterated by the U. S.
Supreme Court in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), which incorporated the Second
Amendment against state action. The Supreme Court again stated:
"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt
on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on
the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,"
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings . . . We repeat those
assurances here."

Further, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d. 933 (7th Cir., 2012) cited the "sensitive place" statement of the Supreme Court in both the Heller and McDonald decisions and concluded: "That a legislature can forbid the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings means that any right to possess a gun for self-defense outside the home is not absolute, and it is not absolute by the Supreme Court's own terms." Therefore, the General Assembly finds that the place or location set forth in subsection (a) of this Section is a sensitive place and the prohibition on the carrying of firearms will promote public safety in this sensitive place.".
Maybe they think it makes their proposed laws chock full of constitutional goodness or something.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.24364 seconds with 10 queries