The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 12, 2012, 05:50 PM   #251
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,423
One thing that people are missing with comments like
Quote:
I think the Illinois lawmakers will pass a law exactly like we have in California which has the effect of keeping the majority disarmed.
is that the Marjory of IL law makers are pro 2nd amendment. A bill has to pass in 180 days and the pro gun law makers are NOT going to let the anti's write the bill.

There is talk that we may see a system like that is in place in FL. 8 hour class and permit issued by the local sheriff's office.

There was a warning from a Anti to his fellow anti's while debating on the house floor the CCW bill that was up for vote last year and this is not word for word but, in a nut shell he said (There will be a time when we will not be able to place restrictions on CCW and the time is coming soon. We should pass this bill). The bill voted on last year was not a good bill for gun owners but was a good one for Anti's, we are not going to see that same bill passed in the coming months.The time for the anti's to place big restrictions on us was the day before yesterday.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 05:59 PM   #252
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Quote:
Another thought, to stir the pot: Within the jurisdiction of the 7th Circuit, we now have a constitutional right to carry a weapon (just like the 2nd Amendment says). OK, say I have a CW permit from IA and want to carry in a state within the 7th that doesn't recognize IA permits (and doesn't issue non-resident permits). Would the law prohibiting me from carrying in that state not be unconstitutional?
The 7th only encompasses IL, WI, and IN, and WI and IN recognize each other's permits.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:06 PM   #253
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
"Marjory of IL law makers are pro 2nd amendment"

Good and I hope that Illinois residents get the best law possible. I don't want anyone to have to put up with what we have here in California. Fortunately, there are some counties that are essentially "shall issue" but I not in one of those.

Last edited by jmortimer; December 12, 2012 at 07:08 PM.
jmortimer is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:13 PM   #254
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Quote:
is that the Marjory of IL law makers are pro 2nd amendment. A bill has to pass in 180 days and the pro gun law makers are NOT going to let the anti's write the bill.
But what you're missing is that that majority isn't for unrestricted carry; they don't want the 180 days to run out any more than the anti-guners do. These are the people that will side with the antis in order to get a bill passed at all costs.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:21 PM   #255
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,423
Quote:
But what you're missing is that that majority isn't for unrestricted carry; they don't want the 180 days to run out any more than the anti-guners do. These are the people that will side with the antis in order to get a bill passed at all costs.
Not "unrestricted" but, with classes and permits. Still a "Shall issue" and not a "May issue" bill. We (Gun owners) are aware that it's not going to be like Indiana next door but, it will be a giant step in the right direction.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:32 PM   #256
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Quote:
Not "unrestricted" but, with classes and permits. Still a "Shall issue" and not a "May issue" bill. We (Gun owners) are aware that it's not going to be like Indiana next door but, it will be a giant step in the right direction.
In order to get that, though, it has to do through Madigan and Quinn. They are going to make it as tough as possible to get shall issue through. When they repeatedly block attempts at a reasonable shall issue law, many of the "pro 2A" legislators will back an anti-sponsored bill just to get something through before the deadline.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:40 PM   #257
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
Madigan and Quinn will do exactly what the Illinois legislature tells them to do. It's still a democracy.

Write good laws, and then make sure they are respected.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:45 PM   #258
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Quote:
Madigan and Quinn will do exactly what the Illinois legislature tells then to do.
Mike Madigan is the Illinois Speaker of the House, making him an important part of the afore mentioned legislature. Between Madigan's dirty politics and Quinn's veto, a reasonable shall issue law is going to be very difficult, if not impossible IMO.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 06:53 PM   #259
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
In the meantime, while your politicians scheme, Alan Gura is writing a petition for grant of cert in the Kachalsky case. He will probably now wait for a decision in Woollard as long as he can, till he has to file.

Should we get a positive decision in Woollard (before Gura must file) this will create the perfect circuit split (the law of the two States being near to identical) and almost guarantees that the SCOTUS takes up the case.

If that is the case, then whatever scheme is in place, had better be a good one, or it will be a really short trip to the court for an immediate injunction against it (assuming that the Court finds in favor of Kachalsky).

If I can see this, you better believe that the ramifications are seen by the IL politicos. The anti-gun crowd is losing and they know it.

I tend to agree with Todd Vandermyde. IL gun owners hold all the cards.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 07:06 PM   #260
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
Rahm said on the news that he is against carry as every police chief in the country is against such. I supposed he asked everyone.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 07:11 PM   #261
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
Here's how it will go...gunnies to grabbers:

"You guys want at least training in place before 180 days are up? Fine. Please us! We want no more FOID. We want Chicago permanently out of the gun control biz (strong preemption). We want unlimited cutlery carry to go with our CCWs. We want full reciprocity with anything that even smells like another CCW permit. We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us. We want you all to do the Funky Chicken Dance in Daley Plaza. You think we're kidding? You're going to have to give us a LOT before we'll concede to training requirements and costs over $10. Because all we have to do is sit here, twiddle our thumbs and fart in your general direction and in 180 days we get constitutional carry and one hell of a party in downtown Chi-town baby. Leave your gangbanger friends behind if you know what's good for 'em."

THAT is where we're at here.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 07:16 PM   #262
SundownRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 508
So with the law struck down, can I carry now? Since there isn't a law that says I can't? What law would be enforced if the existing one is unconstitutional?
__________________
" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are nothing but targets, Nine are real fighters... We are lucky to have them...They make the battle. Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior... and He will bring the others back."
- Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
SundownRider is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 07:47 PM   #263
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,336
Quote:
What law would be enforced if the existing one is unconstitutional?
I wouldn't risk it. At this point, they could arrest you for any number of other things, including disturbing the peace.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 07:52 PM   #264
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Quote:
What law would be enforced if the existing one is unconstitutional?
The decision was stayed for 180 days, so the laws are still in effect until then.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 08:39 PM   #265
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
I don't think very many people understand what constitutional carry will look like in Illinois.

The laws that the ISRA was trying to pass previously (HB148 & HB 5745) would override local ordinances.

Granted that municipal ordinances are misdemeanors, but still, the state is a patchwork of all sorts of different laws from city to city and constitutional carry wouldn't do anything to stop that.

In 180 days - if they didn't either appeal or pass a carry law - you could carry without worrying about being arrested under lllinois AUUW/UUW law, but you could be arrested in some cities for violating a city's "no firearm in a vehicle" ordinance, (or something similar) and have to pay $75, give up your firearm, and all that... and yes each individual law can be challenged. But I don't think the NRA wants constitutional carry and having to deal with a mess like that.

They want a state law that provides uniformity concerning the carrying of a firearm - for the whole state.

And if all else fails - anti-gun municipalities can always arrest you for creating a public disturbance
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 09:18 PM   #266
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
Rahm said on the news that he is against carry as every police chief in the country is against such. I supposed he asked everyone.
He missed at least one here in Illinois. A good friend is Chief in a city of about 10,000. He is NOT opposed to concealed carry. We do live downstate, and mostly consider Chicagoland a foreign and hostile place. It is a shame too; I really do love many things about the city, if you could get rid of the corrupt politicians it could be a fine place to live. That is not a partisan political comment. We have a long and storied history of corruption that transcends party affiliation.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 09:28 PM   #267
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,423
K-MAc is right. Rahm is full of it. A large number of police chiefs and sheriff's are for CCW. Outside of Crook County the % is above 70% in favor. The Illinois Sheriff’s Association has long been in favor of concealed carry.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 09:56 PM   #268
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
I think Rahm's statement really shows what he cares about. Chiefs of large cities are against concealed carry, he doesn't care about anyone else.
Scimmia is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 11:02 PM   #269
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 344
Quote:
What would the legal basis for this be? If you're on the freeway and get arrested for doing 75 in a 65 zone and next year that speed limit is bumped up to 75, you don't get the fine returned and the conviction expunged or deleted; the fact remains that the act was illegal at the time it was committed.
The speeding ticket would be valid. The felony charge of being found with a weapon in the vehicle should be invalidated. They should be able to clear that and get reimbursed. Maybe all those 'appeals' would break the state's coffers.
Look at it like those cases where an offical screwed up DNA samples in a lab and put all cases under his/her purview in question.
I'd try to be first in line if my rights had been violated like that.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 11:35 PM   #270
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,882
Waiting until 2015 for the law and regulations to be written and implemented is a farce. They can adopt any one of the existing laws of other states and be done with it, issuing permits within 90 days. I hope the law-abiding citizens of the state just start carrying, license or no license, beginning on the 4th of July.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old December 12, 2012, 11:47 PM   #271
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,894
Quote:
I don't think very many people understand what constitutional carry will look like in Illinois.

The laws that the ISRA was trying to pass previously (HB148 & HB 5745) would override local ordinances.

Granted that municipal ordinances are misdemeanors, but still, the state is a patchwork of all sorts of different laws from city to city and constitutional carry wouldn't do anything to stop that.

In 180 days - if they didn't either appeal or pass a carry law - you could carry without worrying about being arrested under lllinois AUUW/UUW law, but you could be arrested in some cities for violating a city's "no firearm in a vehicle" ordinance, (or something similar) and have to pay $75, give up your firearm, and all that... and yes each individual law can be challenged. But I don't think the NRA wants constitutional carry and having to deal with a mess like that.

They want a state law that provides uniformity concerning the carrying of a firearm - for the whole state.
I'm not so sure it would be quite that bad. If, per this decision, an outright ban at the state level on carry outside the home is unconstitutional and, per McDonald, the Second Amendment not only applies to the Federal Government but is also incorporated against states and municipalities via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it seems to me that an outright ban at the municipal level would also be just as unconstitutional as the state-level ban.

You are, however, correct in that because IL has no pre-emption law that municipalities could throw up extra hurdles of their own short of a total ban such as extra training requirements, a special permit for the particular municipality, or mandating either OC or CC within said municipality, but the situation still wouldn't be all that much worse than trying to legally transport an unloaded firearm through said municipalities now.

It seems to me that the $64,000 question here is whether the pro-CC legislators view California-style may-issue as better or worse than Constitutional Carry. If they think that Constitutional Carry is still better than May-Issue, then it could become their trump card against the anti-CC legislators. Given the comments that I've read from pro-CC IL legislators, it seems as though what I just described is the strategy: "Either do permits shall-issue or live with no permits at all."
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 12:02 AM   #272
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,792
Go shall issue, and chip away, like we did in AZ. We had no CCW at all in 1993, but in 1994 we got a Shall Issue law passed. Since we had state preemption, there was no patchwork of laws to worry about, so I agree, get your Shall-Issue in place AND a preemption law, and work your way up.
I'm thrilled this happened, and hope it leads to bigger wins.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 12:27 AM   #273
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 670
So in 180 days or 6 months, there will be some type of state law - finally!

Not sure why 6 months - most of the people on this section who are in law could sit down in a room and come out with a great law in 6 weeks.

Anyway, what about the Ordinances like Chicago? They were pretty quick to get an ordinance on the books for owning firearms a year or so ago.
After the 180 days, their current ordinance of no firearms outside the house, nor in your backyard, nor the front porch nor the garage (really!) will not be valid anymore. What if they do not have a new ordinance or will they for sure because they don't want to get taken to court?
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 01:04 AM   #274
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
I have no doubt that one or more delay tactics will be employed. That notwithstanding, what rich irony there would be in the two thirds pro-gun majority resisting ANY carry bill, even shall issue, with the net result being so-called constitutional carry. I realize this wouldn't play out exactly like that, because the obvious intent of the court was to allow a licensing scheme to be developed. If more time were needed, the legislature would probably get it.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old December 13, 2012, 01:36 AM   #275
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,160
Quote:
Rahm said on the news that he is against carry as every police chief in the country is against such. I supposed he asked everyone.

In the county I live in, Bureau County Illinois Sheriff John E. Thompson was interviewed in the local news paper two days ago. He is very much pro second amendment and very much in favor of citizens right to concealed carry. Still, I’m not getting my hopes up for shall issue CCW. I think it will be very limited. A few hundred permits issued, just to make it look good, then the remaining will be denied.
Mike38 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 06:07 AM.


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 0.18045 seconds with 8 queries