|
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 |
April 7, 2013, 05:03 PM | #476 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Off Topic? Hardly. These are just the sort of questions that the layman needs to know the answers of.
Should Kachalsky not be granted cert (in which case, neither would Woollard be granted cert), then there would be no need for Madigan to file for a petition of cert. The State could then go ahead and pass a carry law similar to NY/MD, with no ill effect from an immediate adverse ruling at the district or circuit levels. Of course, if cert is granted, then IL's position becomes somewhat problematic. |
April 7, 2013, 11:51 PM | #477 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Sorry to re-hash all these dates, but it's hard to remember them.
The IL AG's deadline to file for certiorari in Moore is midnight May 23rd (I think) The CA7 stay ends on June 10th (I think) What is the latest that we would find out if cert is granted in Kachalsky? |
April 8, 2013, 08:21 AM | #478 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The latest? We don't really know. There are conference dates in April for the 12th, 19th and 28th. In May, there are 4 dates on Thursdays: 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th. June conferences are: 6th, 13th and 20th. 2012 Term Calendar While I think the decision for cert in Kachalsky will not be later than the end of April, the Court could conceivably wait until Woollard is filed and briefed. That would mean a wait until the start of the 2013 Fall Term. It only requires 4 Justices to decide to take a case. I think it safe to say we can rely upon the 4 progressives to not want to grant cert. But we are not at all sure about what Roberts or Kennedy, may think. Over at the ScotusBlog, there is a short listing on Kachalsky v. Cacace, they have listed the case as one to watch. |
|
April 9, 2013, 02:19 PM | #479 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
April 9, 2013, 02:24 PM | #480 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It's a moot point now.
See the Woollard thread for why Gura filed for en banc. |
April 17, 2013, 11:31 AM | #481 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=209
Luger_carbine: Quote:
This is going to get interesting very quickly. Last edited by maestro pistolero; April 17, 2013 at 11:37 AM. |
|
April 17, 2013, 05:48 PM | #482 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
The attempt to pass a "may issue" CCW law in Illinois failed today.
Some of those no votes were coming from Chicago anti-gun dems who are going to vote no to any kind of carry bill period. |
April 17, 2013, 08:22 PM | #483 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
How convenient that they are so ignorant and blinded by ideology that they will just sit back while the clock ticks out. This is one train wreck I won't mind watching, LOL!
|
April 17, 2013, 09:00 PM | #484 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
Oh well, I guess y'all are getting constitutional carry. Such a shame.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
April 18, 2013, 04:49 AM | #485 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Not constitutional carry, it would be carry w/FOID. Not to mention each county can pass all sorts of local ordinances to make it very confusing. You can bet Chicago will pass a bunch. I'm getting a feeling this is Madigan's plan.
A shall-issue bill would pre-empt these ordinances. |
April 18, 2013, 09:27 AM | #486 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Many localities, outside of even the Chicago area already have carry bans on the books. It FOID Carry would be a nightmare, cross and invisible line and you are a criminal.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
April 18, 2013, 09:38 AM | #487 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 10:03 AM | #488 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
Quote:
Anyone traveling North or South on I294 would be a criminal as you pass by I90/I190 by O'Hare because you cross into Chicago. Anyone driving through Peoria would also be a criminal. I know a lot of down state gun owners could care less about Chicago passing restrictions on right to carry so long as it doesn't effect them, the thing is it does if they ever plan on driving up to Wisconsin.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
|
April 18, 2013, 10:18 AM | #489 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Then they will need to pass state preemption at the same time as shall-issue, or, just state preemption with de facto Vermont carry.
|
April 18, 2013, 10:41 AM | #490 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
The 7th Circuit's ruling doesn't override the home-rule thing? Wow... I'm guessing that's what they're going to do. No State-wide CCW and let the local counties or cities do their own thing.
Wow...that would be a nightmare. Kinda like going from one State that has reciprocality and stopping at the border of a State that doesn't and putting the pistol in the trunk. Oh, wait - I already do that now with y'all...
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
April 18, 2013, 10:51 AM | #491 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 12:32 PM | #492 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
For those who are interested the carry bill is "supposed" to come up for a vote later today. I would say this thread @ Illinois Carry is good for starters, contains links if you want to hear live debate etc.
Also this came out earlier Quote:
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
|
April 18, 2013, 02:57 PM | #493 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
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. |
|
April 18, 2013, 03:25 PM | #494 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 05:18 PM | #495 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Giving Chicago PD the right to contest applications doesn't seem like a small technical change either.
|
April 18, 2013, 05:23 PM | #496 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quadrupling the price is a techinical correction?
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 19, 2013, 08:12 AM | #497 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Well, Spats, were one to give them benefit of the doubt, one might say they had people look at actual costs of running the system, and adjusted fees accordingly.
This being the Chicago bunch, I do not give them any benefit of the doubt, and I am quite sure this is just their way of making it too painful for the majority of working poor to even apply. |
April 19, 2013, 08:22 AM | #498 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 19, 2013, 09:07 AM | #499 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 19, 2013, 09:23 AM | #500 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Yesterday the shall-issue bill failed to get the 71 votes needed to get pre-emption or make it veto-proof or over-ride home rule or something like that. I don't know, I just read that the bill needed 71 votes and only got 64. I can't understand Illinois politics, on the same day, a may-issue bill failed.
So they don't want may-issue and they don't want shall-issue. Does that mean they want constitutional carry, handing the cities and county government all the authority for gun regulations? It seems that it's a dysfunctional legislature that relies on courts to create or delimit it's legal framework. If that's the case - the cities in Illinois will probably be generating all sorts of new 2A cases in the near future. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|