Jump to content


Photo

People v. Mosley Cook Co. AGUUW


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
185 replies to this topic

#31 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

Sorry can someone tell me what this means for us, I'm multitasking so having a hard time reading the details. You can PM me if necessary.


As I understand it, it's another judge in another court finding the Ag UUW statute of IL unconstitutional. And this Judge and Court are located in Cook County, the very baliwick of those that would deny us our rights.

Another nail in the coffin, another round in the magazine to shoot back with.
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#32 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:49 PM

So does this render UUW and AGUUW unconstitutional for all of us or just in this case?
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#33 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:51 PM

it makes it very difficult for them to continue to enforce the Felony side of it. and causes them a lot of problems on this issue.

That beer is gonna tase so good tommorow. . .
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#34 phattony

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 103 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:53 PM

'Merica

#35 mrpapageorgio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 07:57 PM

So this basically threw fuel into the fire under their *** to get a ccw bill goin and quit with the bans.

Edited by mrpapageorgio, 22 March 2013 - 07:57 PM.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#36 KarlJ

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:02 PM

Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed
"Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno

U.S. Attorney General

1993-12-10

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton

1993-08-12

#37 TheDaveFactor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:12 PM

Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed


I wouldn't hold your breath. That isn't the Madigan way...

#38 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:13 PM

Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed


I'd settle for HB1155 with all amendments stripped off except HFA 27!
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#39 TheDaveFactor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:27 PM

Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed


I'd settle for HB1155 with all amendments stripped off except HFA 27!


I'm really hoping that we finally DON'T have to settle for a change.

#40 KarlJ

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:28 PM

Need to get some news coverage out there. "While legislatures drag out the CC debate, judges forced to suspend charges on AGG UUW cases"
That would put their feet to the fire
"Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno

U.S. Attorney General

1993-12-10

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton

1993-08-12

#41 mrpapageorgio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • Joined: 08-June 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:33 PM

So under that Asst. Cook County State's Atty's testimony during the hearing in Springfield,aren't they bound by this judge's ruling since they aren't by the 7th CA's? ;)

Edited by mrpapageorgio, 22 March 2013 - 08:34 PM.

Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer


#42 TheDaveFactor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:35 PM

You know... I feel we may be a little spoiled. Having Todd keeping us so informed on these new rulings.

I sure hope those nice targets folks at Stop Concealed Carry have somebody to keep them up to speed on this stuff... Although... I guess, for them, this is probably just more bad news... :rofl:

Edited by TheDaveFactor, 22 March 2013 - 08:36 PM.


#43 markthesignguy

    S39-(D)D.Harmon(F-) R77-(D)K.Willis(F-)

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,917 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:45 PM

You know... I feel we may be a little spoiled. Having Todd keeping us so informed on these new rulings.

I sure hope those nice targets folks at Stop Concealed Carry have somebody to keep them up to speed on this stuff... Although... I guess, for them, this is probably just more bad news... :rofl:


They do, us....

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign......
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
 


#44 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:48 PM

Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed

I hope, but constitutional carry is our fall back position and I am beginning to think it is also theirs. We will have to stand strong and be willing to say "NO".
I think they have been having things their way for so long that they will not consider defeat. A set back maybe but they will keep pushing.

#45 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:50 PM

So under that Asst. Cook County State's Atty's testimony during the hearing in Springfield,aren't they bound by this judge's ruling since they aren't by the 7th CA's? ;)

I was waiting for someone to mention that. lol

#46 TheDaveFactor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 573 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:54 PM

but constitutional carry is our fall back position and I am beginning to think it is also theirs.


Honestly, I believe that it is their fall back position too. In fact, it may be their primary strategy. They may be counting on the ability to stretch out the fight for awhile by making us have to push through a bunch of local restrictions from community to community.

#47 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,385 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:57 PM

Since Paul Castigliano is an idiot I'm sure he's telling everyone that this ruling doesn't mean anything...
“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#48 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,022 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:09 PM

I like the comparison pics.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#49 Elderberry

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,991 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:12 PM

You know, this really is getting intriguing... Just think, not too far in the future this will be taught in every poly sci class in the country. I think there are some folks on our side who should get royalties from the textbook publishers....

I'll put something clever and witty here when I think of something.........

NRA, ISRA, SAF... Vet.. Former LEO... Current Illinois Concealed Carry Permit Holder....


#50 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:11 PM

Am I missing something? It seems like the court was essentially saying that the mere possession of a firearm does not qualify as a crime punishable as a felony. Is that an over reach on my part?

#51 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

Am I missing something? It seems like the court was essentially saying that the mere possession of a firearm does not qualify as a crime punishable as a felony. Is that an over reach on my part?


Yeah, basically with a hook... He said that they can charge you with either a misdemeanor or a felony with a mandatory 1 year in prison for the exact same crime with no additional qualifiers or circumstances necessary to be charged with a felony over the misdemeanor, thus disproportionate penalties for the same crime and a violation of your 8th Amendment Rights...

Edited by RockerXX, 22 March 2013 - 11:25 PM.

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#52 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:30 PM

Well, if the defendant did have a foid, but the firearm was uncased and loaded, then could it still be a felony but without the mandatory or did the ruling say that the felony charge was unconstitutional?

#53 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 11:38 PM

Well, if the defendant did have a foid, but the firearm was uncased and loaded, then could it still be a felony but without the mandatory or did the ruling say that the felony charge was unconstitutional?


I don't have all the details of what went down or what brought up the charges, and what ifs are not ruled upon only the what dids... Basically he said the law(s) conflicts themselves in penalties and is thus unconstitutional, but the law at the core has already been ruled unconstitutional by the 7th, this just adds ammo as it's now saying that the conflicting penalties part are unconstitutional as well...

Edited by RockerXX, 22 March 2013 - 11:39 PM.

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#54 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 23 March 2013 - 12:03 AM

I did a google search and can't find a transcript etc of this ruling.


Does anyone have a link?

Also, if the judge ruled " that as to these provisions the aggravated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconstitutional both on it's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably construed in a manner that would preserve its validity" then the only thing left to charge someone with for carrying a loaded gun on their person is a Class A misdemeanor?

In other words the judge struck down the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute but not the unlawful use of a weapon?
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#55 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 23 March 2013 - 12:07 AM

I did a google search and can't find a transcript etc of this ruling.


Does anyone have a link?

Also, if the judge ruled " that as to these provisions the aggravated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconstitutional both on it's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably construed in a manner that would preserve its validity" then the only thing left to charge someone with for carrying a loaded gun on their person is a Class A misdemeanor?

In other words the judge struck down the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute but not the unlawful use of a weapon?

Based on the limited info available, that is the way I read it. Not that I am anxious to test the theory, but that is what it seems to be.

#56 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 23 March 2013 - 12:13 AM

I did a google search and can't find a transcript etc of this ruling.


Does anyone have a link?

Also, if the judge ruled " that as to these provisions the aggravated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconstitutional both on it's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably construed in a manner that would preserve its validity" then the only thing left to charge someone with for carrying a loaded gun on their person is a Class A misdemeanor?

In other words the judge struck down the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute but not the unlawful use of a weapon?

Based on the limited info available, that is the way I read it. Not that I am anxious to test the theory, but that is what it seems to be.


Of course, a Class A Misdemeanor is still punishable by up to 364 days in jail and fines up to $2,500.00 if I remember correctly.

So yeah, I won't be testing it either. :P

Edited by cshipley92, 23 March 2013 - 12:14 AM.

Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#57 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,649 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:53 AM

guys, this one might have gotten past me.

I don;t remember it, and as described, it sounds as if it was goign after kids carrying guns illegally, but as we all know the rule of unintended consequenses.

Still I have been on the phone tonight with some people and this judge just messed up a bunch of peoples plans for HB-2265.

I think this gives us even more ability to go in and re-write the law.


I'll buy you the box of pens !!

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#58 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Members
  • 4,341 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:16 AM

Doesn't this kind of hurt us in regards to getting a bill passed? Seems like it forces their hand more toward constitutional carry, which we do not want.
.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those

who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                    - Thomas Jefferson


#59 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 23 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

Constitutional carry with pre-emption would be fine.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#60 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,517 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 23 March 2013 - 11:28 AM

Constitutional carry with pre-emption would be fine.


Preemption is the kicker. How unfun would it be getting arrested for being pulled over on 294 for the breif little stretch through Chicago?