The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 11, 2012, 03:34 PM   #201
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
Quote:
Folks, we're talking about the Constitution of the United States, the overturning of the IL law is incidental compared to the legal principles that are set out in this opinion.
It's a great principle to set, however I'm worried it won't do a whole lot to help the may issue states.. which i'm afraid IL may be likely to become... if so nothing will actually change except some words in a statute.
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:44 PM   #202
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Congrats Illinois!

However, this bothers me:

Quote:
Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
I don't know what the political climate in the IL state legislature is, but this could easily turn into a California or NJ style "May Issue" functional ban. Hopefully IL will be smart, but if I were living in IL right now, I'd be writing my state reps, like now, and getting everyone I know to do the same.
Gaerek is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:47 PM   #203
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,390
Quote:
I don't know what the political climate in the IL state legislature is, but this could easily turn into a California or NJ style "May Issue" functional ban
It might. We've got the Kachalsky and Woollard cases to address that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:52 PM   #204
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,428
It is good news. We have a majority of pro-gun law makers down state right now and we will get a "shall issue" law passed.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:52 PM   #205
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The opinion took to task the 2nd districts reasonable may issue restrictions. So this decision is very much at odds with other districts. It creates a clear split in the circuits. Illinois has 180 days to write a law- and the clear majority in both house and senate are pro-ccw. Illinois had a decent shall issue ccw proposal that was just shy of the 2/3 majority before this decision and the pro-ccw legislators are now anticipating drafting and passing an even less restrictive shall issue ccw law. Unless a conservative judge is replaced on the USSC before the issue comes before the court- which I now see as likely given the split- I do not see this decision being overturned and shall issue will be the law of the land.
mack59 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 04:06 PM   #206
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The words have been the same on the 2A all the way from its writing to today. I agree that the constitutional reading is the important part of this opinion, but for many like myself there was never any doubt as to what the plain English meant.

I am mystified why this wasn't cleared up long ago and to be honest it seems few rights in the bill of rights are so violated as the 2A. What I can say is, I do understand that rights do have limits but limits should be very narrow and rare.

Without trying to be funny or sarcastic, I can honestly say that sometimes I think the right needs to be treated in a way that is similar to affirmative action. The right needs to be recognized and encouraged by the state and federal governments, in places it is discriminated against it needs to be mandated and enforced that you can carry without fear of retribution, loss of job and all the other parts of the puzzle.

I know I'm an idealist but it is these ideals that's caused me to serve more than 20 years for my nation..

I see today as a huge victory and many challenges are still to be faced but finally for once at least one court has had the audacity to speak plainly and rightly without regard for politics.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; December 11, 2012 at 05:38 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 04:06 PM   #207
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 908
Not to throw this topic off course, but how do you think the ruling in Illinois will affect the possibilities of future legislation that would affect the legal purchase or attainment of firearms?

As we all know, the current administration isn't exactly gun advocates, and if I recall and understand correctly, we barely hold the line in the SCOTUS in terms of judges that appear to favor the 2A and the RKBA. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

While it is unlikely that anything will happen until the house elections open in 2014, and equally unlikely an AWB will be passed, it also appears that current administration likes to play dirty when it comes to getting certain legislations passed (Again correct me if I'm wrong).

I will of course still be writing my respective states reps and senators but given latest victory (though it's outcome doesn't appear to be guranteed) in IL, how does that streangthen the RKBA advocates position on a federal level or is this to be taken as a purely state level win?
Kimio is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 05:24 PM   #208
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Quote:
how does that streangthen the RKBA advocates position on a federal level or is this to be taken as a purely state level win?
This is interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States of America.

so unless

1) The State of Illinois appeals

and

2) SCOTUS hears the case and overturns the CA7's opinion -

This is the law of the land. Again, this is the United States - not the State of Illinois, it is much more than a state level win.

IMO, anti gunners are hoping that IL does not appeal. IMO it would be a tactical disaster for the gun control movement to appeal it.

As to how does it affect national RTKBA, well very little IMO. It would prevent the federal government from enacting the type of ban that Illinois had in place, but to the best of my knowledge the federal government has never come close to enacting a law like that and IMO - would not have enacted a ban on carrying, at least not in my lifetime. And even if they tried, there is the issue of states rights. I'm sure Texas and quite a few other would fight any federal ban on carry.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 05:51 PM   #209
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
While this is a Great Day for the advocacy of 2A activism, let's not go further than we have to ... Which is exactly what Judge Posner did in writing his decision.

Alan Gura has already indicated that he will be/is writing a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in Kachalsky. This will add a small amount of justification for the Court to grant that cert.

There will be Rule 28J letters submitted to Peterson (CA10); Woollard (CA4); Piszczatoski (CA3); and the trio of cases at CA9 - Baker, Peruta and Richards. A 28J letter is a submission of Supplemental Authority to the court after briefing is concluded, before or after oral arguments have been made. This decision, while not binding precedent in any other circuit, it is persuasive authority in all other circuits.

Judge Posner was careful (I have only scanned the opinion, as yet) to not say that the CA2 (Kachalsky) was wholly wrong. Please note that. Because it means that IL may in fact pass a similar set of laws as NY.

In that respect, this is not a circuit split. Yet, some of the language by Judge Posner, may go a long way towards getting "may issue" laws ruled as unconstitutional.

So while there is much to rejoice, I would also caution restraint.

I will have more to say, when I get off work and have had time to digest this decision.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 06:00 PM   #210
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Hum, IL Constitution states: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

So, now, if there is no valid IL law banning carry,,,in 180 days, won't IL revert to a VT style carry?
hermannr is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 06:07 PM   #211
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,428
The majority (Pro gun) law makers won't pass a overly restrictive bill just to pass one. If there is no bill passed in the 180 days won't IL revert to Constitutional carry? Not sure if I am using the right words here. So the anti's have to consed to less restrictions or there won't be any restrictions?

Herman beat me to it! LOL
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 06:26 PM   #212
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 215
My best guess is that there will be licensed carry with some form of "may issue." Chicago is still the 800 pound gorilla, and an aide as quoted in the Chicago Tribune: “As the mayor has said all along, the City of Chicago is committed to maintaining the fullest degree of lawful handgun restrictions possible while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, because maintaining common-sense restrictions is an issue of public safety.”

The decision is of course not binding on the Ninth Circuit, and moreover, the three California cases and the one Hawaii cases all dealt with the scope of the sheriff's discretion under the state "may issue" statute, an issue not presented in Moore v. Madigan (there was no right to carry in Illinois for self defense until today), i.e., what may be required by was of "good cause" for issuance. The decision will be persuasive to the extent that there is still an argument being presented by various governmental entities that the right to "bear" does not extend beyond the home
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 06:36 PM   #213
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
If the state passes no law the cities will pass their own. The legislature needs a shall issue law with local premption and minimum restrictions. No law may be ok in most of downstate but will not help in Chicago. I would suggest the state have open carry be legal with just the current FOID card.

Last edited by wally626; December 11, 2012 at 09:30 PM.
wally626 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 06:43 PM   #214
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
^^^ to the above:

Illinois residents ought to attempt to get a CCW law passed that mirrors other states ones. Otherwise... No reciprocity. A carbon copy of Wisconsin law would be ideal. Using the statistics gathered in the one year history of the most recent state to overturn no CCW laws, a neighboring state, with a similar mix of rural, suburban, and urban areas would be smart. No reported problems, no dead bystanders, etc. Leverage this: And ensure reciprocity. You'll want it to come to Wisconsin just as much as we want out licenses recognized there.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 07:36 PM   #215
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 345
Congratulations to the honest citizens there!

I wonder if they'll draft restrictions such as walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk is a crime so they can boost arrest stats on honest citizens. Hard to believe they'll have anything reasonable.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 07:44 PM   #216
Tinner666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 345
Now, the people of Illinois that have been wrongly arrested and weapons confiscated need to file suits on the state and towns for getting their records cleaned up, their firearms replaced at city and state cost, et al!
Their arrests can be expunged in the cases of otherwise honest citizens.
__________________
Frank--
Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member
Tinner666 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 07:45 PM   #217
Martowski
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,099
I'm an Illinois Resident....

and all I have to say is that while I realize we've still got a ways to go, this is a good thing that happened today! At least we've overcome this hurdle! I live in Peoria and even our Mayor and Chief of Police wanted to use Peoria as a test city for concealed carry a couple years ago, so the climate outside of Chicago is ripe for this!

Very happy about this common sense ruling!
__________________
Midwestern Ramblings (my amateur firearms blog): http://martowski.wordpress.com/
Martowski is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 07:58 PM   #218
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinner666
Now, the people of Illinois that have been wrongly arrested and weapons confiscated need to file suits on the state and towns for getting their records cleaned up, their firearms replaced at city and state cost, et al!
Their arrests can be expunged in the cases of otherwise honest citizens.
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.
Don H is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 08:57 PM   #219
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 670
Great News!

Can't wait for this 180 days to come due and see what they have crafted.

Similar to Wisconsin would be fine and reciprocity to neighboring states would also be good.

I know everyone does not know what to do with Chicago, but a CCW could just be an extension of the present restrictions:
Foid card
City of Chicago Firearms Permit - which requires a hands on certified course
Registration of individual firearms
(then can add a CCW permit on to the end of this)

To get through all of that you have to be pretty clean, determined and have a few hundred dollars to throw at it as I found out when getting my firearm permit. This will eliminate a lot of the meatheads that could cause problems down the road. (Of course leaving out all the present people(criminals) who illegally carry.

I am very excited. I finally will not be limited to a range gun and join the rest of the United States in being able to carry a weapon to protect myself and my family.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 08:59 PM   #220
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Don H, I think his rationale is that this particular change will have been due to the prior law having just been ruled unconstitutional. IE, it was not "changed," it was invalidated.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 09:32 PM   #221
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
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.
As I understand it (I am not a lawyer) laws that are found to be unconstitutional are to be treated as if they had never had any force of law or never had existed. Now, how this works out in reality I cant say and other here are much more informed on these things, but that's the answer as I understand it.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 10:15 PM   #222
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,166
Being from Illinois, I don’t believe a thing until I have the CCW permit in my wallet.
Mike38 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 10:26 PM   #223
droptrd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 313
^^^

This.

But Im happy. Serious case of perma-grin

This opinion couldve gone the other way. This is a good day
droptrd is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 11:11 PM   #224
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,666
Undoubtedly a great win for 2A rights but a word of caution. The opinion seems to approve of a permit system and more than hints that a state can require competency in firearms before issuing a permit.

Quote:
[S]ome states sensibly require that an applicant for a
handgun permit establish his competence
in handling firearms. A person who carries a
gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms
is a menace to himself and others. See Massad
Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,”
Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2007, p.
30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh
Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National
Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report , p . 1 1 ,
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904.pdf (visited Oct.
29, 2012).
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...2-1269_002.pdf, slip opinion at 16-17 (font attributes deleted from original).
__________________
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 December 11, 2012, 11:18 PM   #225
tommyd78
Member
 
Join Date: April 30, 2012
Posts: 23
illinois carry

hold the congrats this will be done the CHICAGO WAY don't think Illinois politicians those mainly from chicago will lay down over this. The hippocrites that will vote against this probably have their own special carry permits or their own bodyguards with permits. This state is nuts lived here forever that's my fault.
tommyd78 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 03:03 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 0.17147 seconds with 8 queries