|
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 |
August 16, 2011, 11:44 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
|
Lightning speed,,,
Quote:
And sitting in someone's computer waiting until it's needed,,, My money would also be on it's containing as many roadblocks as possible. Call me cynical but until some agency will prosecute legislators for ignoring a high court ruling nothing will change. SCOTUS is often merely a paper tiger,,, Yes they can make a ruling,,, But who enforces it? It usually takes another court case,,, And even then there is still minimal if any enforcement. Aarond
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat. Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once. Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it? Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time) |
|
August 16, 2011, 09:27 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
|
|
August 18, 2011, 07:59 AM | #53 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
If it looks like the courts will rule against against Illinois - it doesn't mean that everyone lines up and votes "Yes" for HB148. It also doesn't mean they rush and put in draconian laws designed to subvert the spirit of the ruling.
Illinois is not Chicago. Many times - and certainly on the gun issue, Chicago is politically monolithic. It is a machine with a driver at the wheel (at times). But the state of Illinois is not like that. So it's not as if the legislature - seeing that current IL law is going to be ruled unconstitutional - can just sit down in a session and create restrictive anit-gun laws that pass constitutional muster. The difficulty will arise when alternates to 148 are proposed. It no longer becomes a straight up or down vote. You have a a situation where a gun bill that allows cc is voted against by pro-gun politicians because it has provisions in it like "may issue". You also have a situation where politicians who are really anti-gun can can avoid getting branded as anti-2A in the eyes of the general public and can go on the radio and say "we voted for reasonable legislature that would allow Illinois citizens to carry a weapon for self-protection - but that was rejected." All in all, it doesn't look good for anti-gun politicians in Illinois to be the last state in the entire union to not allow some for of carry. In a sense there is already a victory for gun rights advocates because it looks increasingly like we're heading toward the end-game of how the right to carry will be regulated, and that is a huge difference from the question of if Illinois citizens will be allowed to carry. |
August 18, 2011, 10:04 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 553
|
My fear is that if and when CCW comes to Illinois, it's in the form of a MAY ISSUE bill, where you have to prove a need. I believe in some states, you must also register your handguns, as well as provide a ballistic sample.
All of this of course makes it more difficult to get a permit, as well as easier to become a criminal if you don't jump through all the hoops correctly. http://apps.carryconcealed.net/legal...state-laws.php |
August 18, 2011, 01:44 PM | #55 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Spanishjames, your fears are premature and largely unfounded (don't be confused, I'm not saying your fear is unreal). Consider:
Richards v. Prieto --> 9th Circuit <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law. Peruta v. San Diego Cnty --> 9th Circuit <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law. Peterson v. Garcia --> 10th Circuit <-- Challenges permit system that doesn't allow visitors (non-residents) to carry. Kachalsky v. Cacase --> US District Court (USD) for So. N.Y. <-- Challenges "May Issue" laws. Mishaga v. Monken --> USD Central IL <-- Similar to Peterson, but different because of IL FOID and non-issuance to visitors. Woolard v. Sheridan --> USD Maryland <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law. Muller v. Maenz --> USD New Jersey <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law. Smith v. Nelson --> USD S. Dakota <-- Challenges non-issuance to Resident Aliens. Win. Injunction Issued. Fletcher v. Haas --> USD Mass. <-- Same as Smith, above. Osterweil v. Bartlett --> USD No. N.Y. <-- Challenges licensing of non-residents. Scocca v. Smith --> USD No. CA. <-- Equal Protection in licensing of similarly situated indiviuals. Masciandaro v. US --> Seeking Cert <-- Does 2A apply outside the doorstep. Williams v. Maryland --> Seeking Cert <-- Does 2A apply outside the home when permitting system is so arbitrary as to deny regular citizens. This is just the list of cases that will directly affect how IL goes. If either of the two cases seeking cert are granted, all other cases will win. "May Issue" will be a thing of the past. All States will have to allow some form of carry, that is not arbitrary or capricious in nature. Winning any of the other cases first, will provide persuasive precedent for any of the rest, as regards arbitrary "May Issue" licensing/permitting... In other words, "May Issue" will become virtual "Shall Issue." |
August 19, 2011, 12:44 PM | #56 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
We're still waiting for Judge Myerscough's ruling?
|
August 19, 2011, 06:58 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
No reading necessary...kinda.
|
August 22, 2011, 09:41 AM | #59 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Is there an Illinois mandated 72 hour waiting period on delivering court rullings on cases concerning Illinois gun laws?
|
August 22, 2011, 07:17 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
lol good one count.
I am far from a legal expert, but if the Supreme Court rules against Illinois in these main cases would or could the rulings leave it open for localities and municipalities to ban people from conceal carrying? If so I would imagine it is not a stretch that we will see Chicago ban or somehow severely restrict it. |
August 22, 2011, 09:38 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
We are way beyond three days now.
As for local regulations... I suppose local municipalities could regulate it like Chicago did when McDonald came down but they wouldn't be able to ban it. HB148 would preempt all local ordinances. |
August 22, 2011, 10:15 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
I can hear the hammers chipping away a little at a time. In Illinois, California and New York.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
August 23, 2011, 09:38 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 553
|
Al Norris, thanks for the info. Since voting on IL HB148 was postponed for lack of enough yes votes, I thought the bill would have to be weakened in order to get those votes, hence the fear of May Issue. Illinois is the last state to allow CCW. But when I hear about the laws and regulations in NY, NJ, and CA regarding such, which are mostly May Issue States, I cringe at the thought of having to prove a need, and have a law similar to theirs.
I become discouraged knowing that the only thing holding this up is ignorance, political correctness, and a complete disregard for the freedom of choice when it comes to personal protection. So what, if anything, are our representatives trading in order to get those yes votes? p.s. Here's a link to a nicely animated map of the progression of CC Laws in the US on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif |
August 23, 2011, 11:21 AM | #64 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
There are no trade offs that I'm aware of.
And 148 is OC AND CC. They were only 3 or so votes short of passing 148 last time. If current law gets struck down, why would pro-gun politicians make huge concessions? You don't make HUGE concessions when you are on the side with winning momentum. I think we will see something that looks a lot like 148 with only some minor changes to it. |
August 23, 2011, 11:35 AM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
Quote:
|
|
August 23, 2011, 12:24 PM | #66 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 10, 2011
Posts: 377
|
People in Ill.should have the right to apply for a CCW this is just another way the Gov't trys to control the people.Because lets be REAL HERE CRIMALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS and you would think that after all these years the law makers would realize it!!
|
August 24, 2011, 09:43 AM | #67 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
How does Judge Myerscough pronounce her name?
Is her name pronounced "Coe" - rhymes with doe (doh) : a female deer.
Or is it pronounced "Coff" - rhymes with scoff (skɔf) : to speak derisively; mock; jeer. |
September 12, 2011, 12:37 PM | #68 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I called the state and a clerk told me it's procounced Meyerscough - like when you have a cough from a cold - rhymes with Scoff.
|
September 12, 2011, 12:40 PM | #69 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
ode to Judge Sue Myerscough
Oh I'm stuck here waiting
For Judge Myerscough, to displel the lies that the antis pass off That in Illinois there is right to bear arms... But just not outside of our homes or our farms As long as we don't go outside with our guns We can still shoot at ranges and clubs and have fun The state says their sensible laws should remain In the meantime, to thugs we are all easy game.. They've argued their sensible laws do no harm So I'm waiting for when I too can bear arms.. |
September 13, 2011, 09:15 PM | #70 |
Member
Join Date: July 6, 2011
Location: SoIL
Posts: 71
|
Gee whiz! What's taking that judge so long to make up her mind? I guess she is taking her time to write her decision, dotting the "I"s and crossing the "T"s.
__________________
----- In Justice Robert H. Jackson's memorable words, "If there is any fixed star in our constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." |
September 13, 2011, 10:29 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Within the past few days or so she released a judgment for another unrelated case. It's possible she was just tied up on that one?
|
September 14, 2011, 11:07 AM | #72 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
Oh jeez - that means she wasn't even working on Moore !!!
|
September 14, 2011, 08:00 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
I know nothing about this particular judge's schedule. I do know that most federal judges have a heavy case load and criminal cases usually come first. I can easily see three or four months to decide a civil case in relative unchartered waters.
|
September 14, 2011, 09:23 PM | #74 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
In both Shepard and Moore, the State filed notices of supplemental authority as soon as the Kalchalsky dismissal came out.
David Jensen didn't waste any time in making his response (I posted the link in the 2A Cases thread, along with some other info). The NRA (Shepard)? lagging behind, I'm afraid. |
September 15, 2011, 11:05 AM | #75 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I read through the 2A thread and the Kachalsky, but I don't know what this means ^
It seems like Kachalsky case for the time being has gone against us, and the State of IL is trying to reference it in the Moore case and Jensen is saying Kachalski doesn't apply to Moore v Madigan? Last edited by C0untZer0; September 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|