|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 30, 2013, 02:52 PM | #626 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I would have to ready a big ole bowl of popcorn in preparation for watching a prosecution of a law that has been stricken by the CCA. On what basis could it proceed at all?
|
July 30, 2013, 03:27 PM | #627 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
That because now it is law, you must have a permit issued by the State.
It is now a misdemeanor first offence if caught carrying concealed with a FOID card if you are otherwise eligible to hold a permit. Now, since they have no permits available yet, let alone any applications for permits, I don't know what they would do. Local LEO's will not arrest in this county. Just another reason to deny carry as I see it. Our DA hasn't budged on his position even though it is now law. I carry a faxed copy of his decision about CCW in this county bearing his signature for any LEO that has not heard about this. I would find it difficult to believe that any LEO in this county hasn't been informed of the DA's decision. I have interacted with several local LEO's I know personally and I have not been questioned about my right to carry while carrying in their presents. As an aside, they knew this was going to eventually become law one way or another in this state and they should have already had applications printed, available on-line, and distributed to various outlets or PD's where one could be filled out and held until the law passed. Training could have been accomplished ahead of time already knowing what was required in the proposed statute. No, they sat on their collective asses and did nothing except add another 6-9 months to the process of allowing you to carry a weapon in this God-forsaken state. Well, 14 counties said screw you we're allowing carry as outlined in the Constitution. Not only the US Constitution, but also the Illinois State Constitution.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." Last edited by Herr Walther; July 30, 2013 at 03:33 PM. |
July 30, 2013, 08:10 PM | #628 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Plaintiffs appealed to CA7. They were assigned a new case number - 13-2661.
The appeal and a shot at Judge Stiehl: Quote:
|
|
July 31, 2013, 10:46 PM | #629 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This appeal may come before the same panel.
Here is the filing at the 7th: |
August 1, 2013, 06:57 AM | #630 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Location: IL
Posts: 853
|
What counties are vowing to not enforce the law on carrying concealed? I hope it includes Winnebago but I doubt it.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” ― George Orwell |
August 1, 2013, 07:11 AM | #631 |
Member
Join Date: June 13, 2013
Posts: 92
|
Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)
Most of the counties are in either central or southern Illinois. Me personally, I would still avoid tempting fate, as the ISP will still arrest you without a CCW permit.
|
August 1, 2013, 08:31 AM | #632 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
Stark, Peoria, Macon, Randolph, Madison, Marshall, Woodford, Tazewell, Piatt, Shelby, Clinton, White, Edwards, and Logan.
Stay off the Interstate, or obey the traffic laws and don't be waving a gun when the ISP passes you on a country or state road and you should be fine. If you live in one of these counties, check the DA's Office website or the county government website and try and find a letter issued by the DA's office, copy it, and carry it with you. Even if you are arrested the DA will no bill it and you will be released without hassle as long as you were otherwise legal to be carrying. FOID, not brandishing, etc.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
August 1, 2013, 01:31 PM | #633 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
"The county web site told me it's okay to ignore the law"? I don't think that'll go far in court. |
|
August 1, 2013, 02:29 PM | #634 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
|
August 1, 2013, 02:46 PM | #635 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Rather be tried by 12, etc. etc. . .
|
August 1, 2013, 03:02 PM | #636 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
The motion for emergency injunction is a good move. It's hard to see how it would be denied since the district court considers the whole issue moot.
|
August 1, 2013, 04:55 PM | #637 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Quote:
Good luck with the second attempt - I think it will make it and be an even better decision! |
|
August 1, 2013, 10:35 PM | #638 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
|
"That's all well and good if you're just found carrying before the actual licenses are available, but what happens if you carry and actually have to use the weapon to defend yourself? In that event, CAN a prosecutor no bill? And what about civil lawsuit by the goblin you shoot (or his estate)? What's your defense going to be?
"The county web site told me it's okay to ignore the law"? I don't think that'll go far in court." I guess that depends on whether or not it was a justifiable shoot. You're not going to be charged with carrying in any case. If you screwed up the shoot you might be charged with 2nd degree. I don't know about the civil suit. Why would it be any different from any other good shoot? Or bad shoot? The signed letter I have from the DA doesn't say anything about the aftermath of a good or bad shoot. Why not call him and ask him? Randolph County, IL. Prosecutors Office. Jeremy Walker, 618.826.5000, ext. 193. Or you can e-mail him at statesattorneyrandolph AT gmail DOT com. Let us know what he says regarding your doubts and questions.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors" ------------------------------------- "...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime." ------------------------------------- "In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare." |
August 2, 2013, 09:46 AM | #639 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Quote:
If you were using the gun to prevent grave bodily harm, self defense is an affirmative defense. Even in Chicago people who weren't FOID holders and even had illegal guns who had used a firearm to defend themselves haven't been charged with UUW/AUUW. The cases I know of were home invasions though... so that's a little bit more cut and dried than a confrontation under other circumstances. Anyway, on the highway they have the case law that says a center console or glove compartment constitutes a case, you would just have to unload the firearm before putting it in there. The sheriff of at least one of those Illinois counties listed send a memo to the ISP warning the State Troopers to not come into the county to try to make AUUW/UUW arrests. Last edited by Luger_carbine; August 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM. |
|
August 2, 2013, 07:57 PM | #640 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
If you go back to the 2A Cases thread, and go to entry #45, you will see some new docket information. RECAP now allows for the docket and filings for Circuit Courts.
Yesterday, the motions panel denied the Motion for Emergency Injunction but granted the Motion to Expediate the case. Also in the grant, the panel agreed to treat the motion (doc #4.1) as the Opening Brief. The State's response is due on August 9th (next Friday) and the reply is due on the 14th (the following Wednesday). CA7 Docket for 13-2661, Sheppard |
August 6, 2013, 11:23 AM | #641 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
As much as I'd like Posner to smite the recalcitrant Illinois Attorney General, and allow plaintiffs to carry immediately, I don't think it's going to happen.
The court has called for a conference under Rule 33, scheduled for Friday, August 16th. I think the court is asking both parties to hash it out... it will be interesting! |
August 6, 2013, 12:32 PM | #642 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
It would be interesting, but we'll never hear what goes on:
Quote:
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
August 6, 2013, 06:18 PM | #643 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
I really don't know why CA7 thinks they'll just work it out. IL doesn't want anyone carrying until the first permits are issued next year, while the NRA wants FOID carry. Not sure what other options there are, short of the legislature whipping up a temporary measure allowing carry on out of state permits, but that's unlikely.
|
August 6, 2013, 09:04 PM | #644 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I think the NRA is trying to keep the pressure on so Illinois doesn't slow-walk the process into eternity. I think there is a real possibility that the ISP would do that. With the threat that some form of carry might come any day - without 16 hours of training probably bothers the antis. That would motivate the ISP's anti-gun boss Governor Quinn to get the training requirements and permitting process in place.
But I think that calling a settlement meeting is not helping. It gives Illinois more time to stall and stall. IMO as soon as the antis believe that FOID carry is not a possibility, the process will start moving molasses slow. The plaintiff Mary Shepard was attacked in a church. A state senator Dan Kotowski is introducing a bill to ban carry in churches. Wouldn't that effort be enough to show the judges that this case is not moot? |
August 9, 2013, 06:24 PM | #645 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
From the docket, doc #16.1, filed 08-07-2013: Argument set for Thursday, October 3, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721. Each side limited to 20 minutes. [16] [6506384] [13-2661] (AB)
|
August 9, 2013, 07:58 PM | #646 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
And right on time, the State has filed its response: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....-2661.20.0.pdf
|
August 10, 2013, 05:29 AM | #647 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
IL is basically trying to throw everything out there. Plaintiffs need to file a new lawsuit, and even if we lose let's do a discovery phase, yada, yada, yada, yet never really acknowlege the ban is still in effect until the permits end up in people's hands.
|
August 10, 2013, 07:08 AM | #648 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Its a desperation plea. One that may work.
|
August 11, 2013, 06:15 AM | #649 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
If nothing else, this rope-a-dope strategy is having the very obvious effect of running out the clock. At no cost to itself, Illinois has already essentially obtained at a 60 day block of time in which no carry permits will be available to Illinois citizens.
|
August 11, 2013, 12:41 PM | #650 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
of course - they intend to never issue any "permits" except to the Governor' and mayor's "bodyguards", similar to the city of Oakland last time I was in it, IIRC. IL state and Chicago city government panic at the state of an armed population...and maybe they should wonder WHY that makes them so nervous...
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|