The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 9, 2013, 02:27 PM   #526
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 201
I found the ordinance. Apparently, one needs a FOID, a Chicago Firearms Permit AND a Firearm Registration Certificate. Section 8-20-140


https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...r-registry.pdf

Last edited by Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret; May 9, 2013 at 02:46 PM.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old June 4, 2013, 10:49 AM   #527
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Plaintiff's response to AG Lisa Madigan's motion to stay

I think David Sigale wrote this... but I could be wrong...

It was posted over at IllinoisCarry.com:

Plaintiff's Response



I think the IL AG is just trying to create safe time period for the law to be enacted and prevent a temporary switching of Ill fro current UUW to "court" carry to the new CCW law. But if the Circuit Court grants her stay - it takes the pressure off the governor to sign it, and it could be delayed another 60 or so days.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 4, 2013, 11:57 AM   #528
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,070
Love this:

Quote:
3. Indeed, the desire to seek Supreme Court review is the only
authorized ground for seeking a stay of this Court’s mandate.
Poking the bear a little?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 4, 2013, 12:27 PM   #529
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
Poking the bear a little?
Ya...

Maybe even encouraging or daring Lisa Madigan to meet them in Washington...

But as much as the rest of us would like to see this go to SCOTUS, gun owners in Illinois want the damn bill to be signed ASAP. Most of them are chomping at the bit to get started on their training and apply for their CWPs, and they seem to be freaking out over this motion.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 4, 2013, 04:25 PM   #530
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Well that was quick

Quote:
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.
Order
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 4, 2013, 04:36 PM   #531
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,983
Absurd. But unsurprising.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 12:30 PM   #532
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I'd be going nuts right now if I lived in Illinois.

It's the 4th quarter of the game, they're down 15 points with less than a minute left and they're fouling on the inbound.

They're in the Bonus too!
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old June 5, 2013, 04:33 PM   #533
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 212
Seems to me if it cost the state an extra 100 million to delay the implementation of this law another day that they'd do it.
press1280 is offline  
Old June 7, 2013, 07:46 PM   #534
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Motion granted

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=530

Extended to July 9th
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 17, 2013, 11:31 AM   #535
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Illinois AG Lisa Madigan files for another extension to file certiorari

Really crummy article on it:

http://capitolfax.com/2extMadiganvMoore.pdf

link to the actual motion...

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...ttach_id=11850

Last edited by Luger_carbine; June 17, 2013 at 12:08 PM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 09:49 AM   #536
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Application granted:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...es/12a1053.htm
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 06:36 PM   #537
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,312
So, is this just a delaying tactic, or is the state actually going to try to bring the case before SCOTUS?
raimius is offline  
Old June 18, 2013, 07:43 PM   #538
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,070
I believe she is preserving options in case the governor is able to somehow sabotage the will of the people and prevent the law from taking effect. Nothing would surprise me here.

I have no idea how the governor might accomplish this, but I fully expect a very creative attempt to kill the new law, at which point the AG would file for certiorari and petition for (and be granted) a stay of the circuit decision. Delay, delay, delay, and hopefully (from her point of view) deny.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 19, 2013, 10:48 PM   #539
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
The governor of Illinois is not limited to veto or sign; he can selectively veto with recommendations for a law he will sign, and that puts the ball back in the Legislature's court to approve the changes or override the veto. There is some discussion as to whether he might gut and replace with the "Chicago" bill that was voted down (giving Chicago home rule).

Of course, the whole thing has a hidden political calculus that has more to do with who will be then next governor of Illinois, Quinn or Madigan. Whoever blocks concealed carry in the state will almost automatically lose the vote of the Southern Illinois democrats. The tricky thing is that they both want to block CC. but neither wants to be responsible for it. Quinn is trying to force Madigan to file for cert (and seek a stay of the appellate decision and injunction pending the cert app), while Madigan is trying to wait Quinn out on his response to the bill that is in front of him. Whoever acts first loses.

Right now, it seems that Madigan has the upper hand; the time on the extension to pass a bill or face an injunction runs out before the time to file the petition for cert. Technically, however, Quinn gets 60 days to respond to a bill on his desk, and that time runs out after Madigan's extension--but after the injunction is set to issue. Will he risk constitutional carry to force Madigan to file?
62coltnavy is offline  
Old June 20, 2013, 11:02 AM   #540
cobra81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2005
Location: Land of Lincoln
Posts: 299
Quote:
Of course, the whole thing has a hidden political calculus that has more to do with who will be then next governor of Illinois, Quinn or Madigan. Whoever blocks concealed carry in the state will almost automatically lose the vote of the Southern Illinois democrats. The tricky thing is that they both want to block CC. but neither wants to be responsible for it. Quinn is trying to force Madigan to file for cert (and seek a stay of the appellate decision and injunction pending the cert app), while Madigan is trying to wait Quinn out on his response to the bill that is in front of him. Whoever acts first loses.
Agreed. What this really means is that, once again, the people of the formerly great state of Illinois LOSE, as politicians again put their own freaking political aspirations ahead of the will of the people they were hired to represent.
We're simply pawns in the game of chess between Madigan and Quinn.
cobra81 is offline  
Old June 21, 2013, 12:03 PM   #541
rts99
Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
Committment

They say that when you order bacon & eggs the hen is involved but the pig is committed.

So now that the SC has twice intervened in the CA7 ruling in Moore is the court merely involved or are they now committed? You have to believe that this was a consideration in granting the 2nd extension.

Th CA7 at least (tried?) to put their foot down by stating publicly that their stay was a one-time-only deal. We'll see.....
rts99 is offline  
Old June 21, 2013, 12:18 PM   #542
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 725
It might be bad to say, but I bet the majority of the citizens in Illinois, wish Cate O'Leary was back, with her cow. Its a shame how large cities in some states control the whole state, and do not care for the wants and rights of the rural people. From Illinois, New York, and California, you can see this as plain as day. I'm glad that Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo don't have that size, but they do still control Ohio.
Dixie Gunsmithing is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 12:22 AM   #543
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
New IL Gov policy for concealed carry/gun owners...

Fox News Channel has a report saying IL's Gov Quinn(D) wants to limit concealed permit/license holder's to only one/01 firearm & only one/01 10 round pistol magazine.
This to me is stupid. How can a IL resident feel safe or prepared to deal with a violent crime with only one firearm & a "limit" of only 10 rounds/1 pistol magazine.
What if the mag breaks or you need a spare magazine? Can you call "time-out" with the violent bad-guys?
What if you want to tote a back-up or 2nd gun? IL has cold, windy winters.
If you wanted a back-up J frame or a small back-up Glock 27 sub compact, you'd be a "criminal" under the new laws of Gov Quinn.

The NRA and 2A groups should push to defeat this dumb change.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 07:12 AM   #544
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
It's actually a little sillier than that, the governor's bill limits a person to one firearm and one 10 round magazine and another 10 cartridges (just not in a magazine)

What do you do with 10 loose rounds? Do you wrap a rubber band around them and carry them in your pocket? Get one of those ammo wallets and only put 10 rounds in it? And what good would they do you if you've already been attacked, expended 10 rounds and need to reload?

These are the nonsensical things that anti-gunners come up with because they are ignorant of firearms.

But the NRA doesn't have to fight this. The sponsor of the bill filed for an over-ride vote. That means legislators have to vote the original HB183 up or down as is - no modifications. The veto will either be over-written or the bill will die. There is no time for the Illinois legislature to craft another carry bill. If the veto is not over-riden, there are only 2 options:

1) Current Illinois UUW law in regards to carry ceases to be in effect after July 9th and people in Illinois have "court" carry - subject to city ordinances

2) Illinois AG Lisa Madigan appeals to SCOTUS and I don't know the legal terms for it, but the effect is that current IL UUW law stays in force while it is heard at SCOTUS.

Last edited by Luger_carbine; July 3, 2013 at 07:40 AM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 3, 2013, 07:30 AM   #545
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
A problem that Lisa Madigan and all the anti-gunners in Illinois have is that 10 county states attorneys in Illinois have already said that they are not going to prosecute people simply for carrying.

Many SAs have already laid out a concealed carry law by stipulating the conditions under which they would not charge someone with UUW.

There are dozens and dozens of other counties that were waiting for this to be resolved by the legislature. If there is no resolution, and the whole thing goes to the supreme court, you could expect a lot of anger over it and almost the entire southern part of the state would have defacto carry. Only the State Police would still be arresting people for UUW and only on Illinois highways - but the Illinois Supreme Court already ruled that keeping a firearm in a console means the firearm is not immediately accessible, so unless someone was driving and they had a firearm on them, the State Police wouldn't be able to nab people. You'd have to be dumb not to know the law and set out on the highway with a gun in a IWB or something like that. County Sheriffs have also already gone on record advising that they would not take kindly to state troopers coming into their counties and arresting people off the street for UUW.

So anyway, there is a lot of pressure now on all legislators to over-ride this veto. Even anti-gun politicians are under pressure to just grit their teeth and sign it because the alternative is something that they really really don't want to see.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 12:43 PM   #546
stormy36
Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2013
Posts: 21
The provision of this bill that kills me the most isn't even one of Quinn's line-items, it's one of those built into the version that passed the senate and house-- that CCW will be prohibited on public transit. What a load of crap. Who needs CCW the most? The people who are out on the street and in the buses and trains all day, all night. Those of us who walk a mile home from the train at 3am. Take a look at the map of the 40 who were shot over the Independence Day holiday-- ALL in transit-dependent neighborhoods. It's the responsible citizens in those neighborhoods that most need their right to self-protection available to them. It's great that you can now carry driving around Naperville and Schamburg, but the hurt that is caused by prohibiting CCW on CTA, denying the right of self-defense to those who need it most, is immeasurable.
stormy36 is offline  
Old July 5, 2013, 09:21 PM   #547
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,073
Quote:
Who needs CCW the most? The people who are out on the street and in the buses and trains all day, all night.
Yep, and that wasn't accidental. By prohibiting carry on public transportation, they've pretty much made the law a moot point for the commoners. Aldermen, of course, will still be afforded armed protection on the taxpayers' dime.

I expected this when I read the dissenting opinion. The judge who wrote it mentioned that Illinois might be required to allow carry, but that the right could be rendered impossible to exercise on a place-by-place basis.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 6, 2013, 07:14 AM   #548
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 631
This coming Monday/Tuesday: end of the uncertainty in Illinois

With the Governor's amendatory veto, this coming Monday and Tuesday loom as the final resolution of the concealed carry situation here in Illinois. I am hopeful that on Monday both houses of the legislature will override the veto, putting the concealed carry bill into law. With all its flaws it is still far better than the status quo, which is that we cannot carry in this state at all. But as I understand the legal situation, if nothing happens on Monday, as of Tueday 7/9, the state's current ban on carrying concealed no longer would be in effect, and thus anyone with a Firearm Owner's ID card could carry legally anywhere in the State, with no prohibitions. So either way, by Tuesday of this week the issue should be settled. Of course, if the new law is passed by overriding the veto, I have no idea how long it will take to implement and I expect that the Chicago leaders will stretch things out as long as they can. With no indication of a lessening of gangbanger violence in this state, concealed carry for self defense cannot come quick enough.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell
vito is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 07:53 AM   #549
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
So either way, by Tuesday of this week the issue should be settled.
There is a remote possibility that the veto will not be over-ridden, and Illinois AG immediately appeals to SCOTUS.

It would be really interesting to see how many additional county state's attorneys stopped prosecuting Illinois UUW/AUUW if that happened.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old July 7, 2013, 10:09 PM   #550
Sparky277
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2012
Location: Peoples Republic of Illinois
Posts: 7
I would think that by denying the right to carry on public transportation, you are denying the right of those people who use public transportation exclusively to defend themselves.
Sparky277 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 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.20944 seconds with 10 queries