The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 16, 2011, 11:44 AM   #51
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,229
Lightning speed,,,

Quote:
so I wouldn't be suprised to see a CCW law passed with lightning speed if it looks like either of these cases isn't going the state's way.
My bet would be that the legislation is already written,,,
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
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old August 16, 2011, 09:27 PM   #52
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
Quote:
My bet would be that the legislation is already written,,,
HB148. We were only six votes short, well three votes until three wussies bailed on us.
Davey is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 07:59 AM   #53
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 10:04 AM   #54
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 541
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
spanishjames is offline  
Old August 18, 2011, 01:44 PM   #55
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
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."
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 12:44 PM   #56
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
We're still waiting for Judge Myerscough's ruling?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 01:48 PM   #57
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
When she delivers her opinion, it will be listed here. Scroll down until you find her name.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 06:58 PM   #58
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
No reading necessary...kinda.

Davey is offline  
Old August 22, 2011, 09:41 AM   #59
C0untZer0
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?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 22, 2011, 07:17 PM   #60
Patriot86
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.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old August 22, 2011, 09:38 PM   #61
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
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.
Davey is offline  
Old August 22, 2011, 10:15 PM   #62
Eghad
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
Eghad is offline  
Old August 23, 2011, 09:38 AM   #63
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 541
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
spanishjames is offline  
Old August 23, 2011, 11:21 AM   #64
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old August 23, 2011, 11:35 AM   #65
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,947
Quote:
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.
I doubt Chicago would be able to get away with that. SCOTUS already found in McDonald that 2A was incorporated against both states and localities through the Due Process Clause of 14A. Assuming that SCOTUS rules that a ban on carry is a violation of 2A, that would also be incorporated under McDonald.
__________________
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 August 23, 2011, 12:24 PM   #66
JACK308
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!!
JACK308 is offline  
Old August 24, 2011, 09:43 AM   #67
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 12:37 PM   #68
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 12, 2011, 12:40 PM   #69
C0untZer0
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..
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 09:15 PM   #70
Terminus009
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."
Terminus009 is offline  
Old September 13, 2011, 10:29 PM   #71
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
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?
Davey is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 11:07 AM   #72
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Oh jeez - that means she wasn't even working on Moore !!!
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 08:00 PM   #73
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,758
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old September 14, 2011, 09:23 PM   #74
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 15, 2011, 11:05 AM   #75
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 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 08:22 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 0.17879 seconds with 8 queries