Jump to content


Photo

Attorneys argue requiring gun permits is unconstitutional


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,995 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 19 November 2018 - 12:06 AM

article HERE

POSTED 9:00 PM, NOVEMBER 17, 2018, BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

PEORIA, Ill. (AP) _ Two public defenders from Peoria County say requiring permits to carry firearms outside the home is unconstitutional.

The Peoria Journal Star reports that defense attorneys Chandra Justice and Mark Rose have filed motions in several cases in which defendants are charged with felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.

Illinois allows carrying concealed firearms with a permit. Justice and Rose argue requiring a permit violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They say their clients work and live in unsafe neighborhoods and have a right to protect themselves.

Peoria County State’s Attorney Jerry Brady’s office says the premise is flawed because it relies on a federal appeals court case from Hawaii where there is no mechanism for carrying weapons.

The motions are scheduled for late December hearings.


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#2 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,279 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 19 November 2018 - 12:18 AM

 

article HERE

POSTED 9:00 PM, NOVEMBER 17, 2018, BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

PEORIA, Ill. (AP) _ Two public defenders from Peoria County say requiring permits to carry firearms outside the home is unconstitutional.

The Peoria Journal Star reports that defense attorneys Chandra Justice and Mark Rose have filed motions in several cases in which defendants are charged with felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.

Illinois allows carrying concealed firearms with a permit. Justice and Rose argue requiring a permit violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They say their clients work and live in unsafe neighborhoods and have a right to protect themselves.

Peoria County State’s Attorney Jerry Brady’s office says the premise is flawed because it relies on a federal appeals court case from Hawaii where there is no mechanism for carrying weapons.

The motions are scheduled for late December hearings.

 

 

Agree - but the premise is flawed in a number of ways...

One - there is no other right in the Constitution that requires an individual (not a group of individuals) to obtain a "permit" to exercise the language thereof.


Edited by GWBH, 19 November 2018 - 12:21 AM.

Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#3 VannDaddy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 13

Posted 19 November 2018 - 04:46 AM

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

#4 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,325 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 19 November 2018 - 07:35 AM

I would love to see a "permit to purchase"/Possess type case reach the SCOTUS. I don't know if this is the right one though.



#5 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,324 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 19 November 2018 - 11:30 AM

My personal belief is that the constitution guarantees the right to openly carry arms in public without a license or permit...but not necessarily to conceal carry.



#6 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,788 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 19 November 2018 - 11:55 AM

My personal belief is that the constitution guarantees the right to openly carry arms in public without a license or permit...but not necessarily to conceal carry.

 

The term "bearing arms" does imply open carry. 


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#7 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,905 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 19 November 2018 - 12:46 PM

My personal belief is that the constitution guarantees the right to openly carry arms in public without a license or permit...but not necessarily to conceal carry.

 

I guess I missed that part in the 2A where it says you can't conceal a firearm without special permission.  It says " The right to bear arms "  , not " The right to bear arms openly " .


Edited by papa, 19 November 2018 - 12:46 PM.


#8 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 19 November 2018 - 01:33 PM

 

My personal belief is that the constitution guarantees the right to openly carry arms in public without a license or permit...but not necessarily to conceal carry.

 

I guess I missed that part in the 2A where it says you can't conceal a firearm without special permission.  It says " The right to bear arms "  , not " The right to bear arms openly " .

 

I agree.  The very language itself doesn't specify a particular mode of carry, nor does it specify a particular weapon.  So if you want to sling a minigun off your shoulder and pack it around, it's constitutional according the the founding fathers.


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

#9 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,663 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 19 November 2018 - 05:14 PM

I know Jerry Brady and he is pro-gun. I have discussed concealed carry with him several times and he is all for concealed carry and our right to self-defense. He does, however, believe in going after criminals who use guns. He may very well be pointing out to the defense attorneys to use a different argument. IANAL. He was one of the States Attorneys who said in 2013 he wouldn’t prosecute someone who concealed carry if that was the only crime after the concealed carry bill passed but had not gone into effect. He came out for constitutional carry along with the Tazewell County States Attorney during that time. This is only a point of information.
NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#10 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 969 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 19 November 2018 - 06:29 PM

...  The very language itself doesn't specify a particular mode of carry, nor does it specify a particular weapon....


Madison et al. were very aware that firearm technology was not constant. They intended that the 2A would protect whatever firearms were state-of-the-art at any time.

In 1792, Congress passed a Federal law that attempted to mandate what particular firearms all conscriptable people ("the militia") should own to train and to be ready (an 18-guage musket). In 1794, only about 30% of the target population (white male citizens aged 18-45) had complied. It turns out that state-of-the-art firearms in any era aren't always within the economic means of everyone.

George Washington used the significantly less-than-perfect compliance rate to argue that Congress should establish a national armory system, so that the government could issue military-grade weapons in a time of war or other unrest to those who didn't already own them. Thus the Harpers Ferry Armory came to be.

Edited by Euler, 19 November 2018 - 06:30 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.

#11 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,432 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 19 November 2018 - 07:13 PM

My personal belief is that the constitution guarantees the right to openly carry arms in public without a license or permit...but not necessarily to conceal carry.

 
I guess I missed that part in the 2A where it says you can't conceal a firearm without special permission.  It says " The right to bear arms "  , not " The right to bear arms openly " .

Exactly.

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


#12 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,735 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 19 November 2018 - 09:15 PM

I think it's reasonable to assume that the framers intended only to guarantee that there was a right to bear arms, and went to great lengths to exclude any explicit or implicit conditions, as none exist in the language of the amendment.

A practical person might also assume that had the framers considered such modes of carry, they'd immediately be aware that a pistol tucked into a belt would necessarily be visible in warmer weather, and covered with an overcoat in cooler weather. Yet they remained silent on the subject.

#13 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,219 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 19 November 2018 - 09:32 PM

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

But poll taxes weren't ruled unconstitutional, they were outlawed with a Constitutional amendment. But still it shouldn't be a financial burden to exercise a right.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#14 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 20 November 2018 - 12:21 AM

A practical person might also assume that had the framers considered such modes of carry, they'd immediately be aware that a pistol tucked into a belt would necessarily be visible in warmer weather, and covered with an overcoat in cooler weather. Yet they remained silent on the subject.

They were also aware that it wasn't uncommon for people to be out and about carrying a long gun, large knife, hatchet or other weapon in full view or concealed as their everyday outfit.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#15 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,995 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 20 November 2018 - 09:22 AM

 

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

But poll taxes weren't ruled unconstitutional, they were outlawed with a Constitutional amendment. But still it shouldn't be a financial burden to exercise a right.

 

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#16 Honeybee42

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 25 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 18

Posted 20 November 2018 - 01:03 PM

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

Yes, when you add the price of the classes ($200 here, unless you get a discount or qualify for having part of the hours counted through other means) + the license itself at $150 + the "convenience fee" (which, considering it's the only option, I don't see how that's reasonable, even if it is nominal) + the $10 for the FOID (plus the time in locating an approved class/classes, that becomes a pretty significant financial "speedbump" to overcome.



#17 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 20 November 2018 - 06:19 PM

 

 

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

But poll taxes weren't ruled unconstitutional, they were outlawed with a Constitutional amendment. But still it shouldn't be a financial burden to exercise a right.

 

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

 

^^^  THIS!!!  ^^^

I've held off on getting my concealed carry permit because it's simply not affordable for me, and I disagree with the fee system. In this example, they've essentially priced me out of exercising my constitutional rights. My father has also waited, hoping the fees would go down, or be eliminated. So he's being denied the right to exercise his constitutional rights due to being low income as well.


Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent

#18 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,459 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 21 November 2018 - 09:00 AM

 

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

 

 

^^^  THIS!!!  ^^^

I've held off on getting my concealed carry permit because it's simply not affordable for me, and I disagree with the fee system. In this example, they've essentially priced me out of exercising my constitutional rights. My father has also waited, hoping the fees would go down, or be eliminated. So he's being denied the right to exercise his constitutional rights due to being low income as well.

 

 

I've long .. about this I have several friends with a wife and 2 or 3 kids that simply can't fit that into the budget.   Only the people with money have the constitutional right to own a firearm.   I said own, the FOID should also be gone or minimally free. But if you have to show and ID to get a firearm it should be the same. It costs the state a WHOLE bunch of money to run elections.   Perhaps we should push for a voters ID and charge $10 for it and see what John Q Public thinks of that. 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#19 cshipley92

    Member

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

Posted 21 November 2018 - 01:08 PM

 

 

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

 

 

^^^  THIS!!!  ^^^

I've held off on getting my concealed carry permit because it's simply not affordable for me, and I disagree with the fee system. In this example, they've essentially priced me out of exercising my constitutional rights. My father has also waited, hoping the fees would go down, or be eliminated. So he's being denied the right to exercise his constitutional rights due to being low income as well.

 

 

I've long .. about this I have several friends with a wife and 2 or 3 kids that simply can't fit that into the budget.   Only the people with money have the constitutional right to own a firearm.   I said own, the FOID should also be gone or minimally free. But if you have to show and ID to get a firearm it should be the same. It costs the state a WHOLE bunch of money to run elections.   Perhaps we should push for a voters ID and charge $10 for it and see what John Q Public thinks of that. 

 

:rolleyes:  :rolleyes: That would be voter suppression.  Forcing people to get an ID to exercise their right to vote?  It's unthinkable. There isn't another right where you have to get a permit etc to exercise it....Oh, wait. :P

 

I mean, how will the dead, or illegal immigrants, vote and how would the people who vote multiple times be allowed to exercise their right to do so if we did such a thing?  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

 

Yes, I am being sarcastic in case anyone was wondering. :D


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

#20 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,450 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 21 November 2018 - 02:35 PM

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

They should attack it from every angle. Requirement of a permit, which will likely be upheld. But also the fact that there are fees, and that the fees are greatly in excess of the cost of administration. That the requirements are an undue burden. That the delays are an excessive burden. That the review board is an excessive burden, and violates due process and speedy trial rights. All of it.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#21 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,995 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 21 November 2018 - 03:53 PM

 

Perhaps they need to take the angle where the fees to get a FCCL are excessive and akin to a poll tax.

They should attack it from every angle. Requirement of a permit, which will likely be upheld. But also the fact that there are fees, and that the fees are greatly in excess of the cost of administration. That the requirements are an undue burden. That the delays are an excessive burden. That the review board is an excessive burden, and violates due process and speedy trial rights. All of it.

 

I like this idea.  This would be a many faceted lawsuit that SCOTUS could use to strengthen 2A Rights instead of having to make narrow decisions.  This would cover just about all of the problems.


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#22 wtr100

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,400 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 09

Posted 23 November 2018 - 06:33 AM

I hope these guys are not off the reservation and working with a real group like NRA or SAF.

 

Court cases don't happen in a vacuum - they search long and hard for the right case and right plantif - a farked up way to do things but it's the way things are done.  A half baked case will do  more harm than good 


Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, 60 rounds powder and ball and be ready to march at a minute's warning

ISRA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Instructor Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun
NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
ISP Approved Concealed Carry Instructor


#23 sctman800

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 23 November 2018 - 08:40 AM

   wtr100 said it well, a weak or flawed case may do the opposite of what you want to do.  Also the SC from my observation perfers to make narrow decisions.   Jim.


Kristofferson wrote it and Janis sang it "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

#24 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,597 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 23 November 2018 - 12:12 PM

I've held off on getting my concealed carry permit because it's simply not affordable for me, and I disagree with the fee system. In this example, they've essentially priced me out of exercising my constitutional rights. My father has also waited, hoping the fees would go down, or be eliminated. So he's being denied the right to exercise his constitutional rights due to being low income as well.

 

 

I've long .. about this I have several friends with a wife and 2 or 3 kids that simply can't fit that into the budget.   Only the people with money have the constitutional right to own a firearm.   I said own, the FOID should also be gone or minimally free. But if you have to show and ID to get a firearm it should be the same. It costs the state a WHOLE bunch of money to run elections.   Perhaps we should push for a voters ID and charge $10 for it and see what John Q Public thinks of that. 

 

 

I both agree and disagree with the FOID concept.

I do consider it minimally free at $1 per year, paid up front for 10.

Free would be even better...

When on either side of a private transfer, I do enjoy the peace of mind of dealing with a state verified eligible person.

 

I can imagine a time, soon to come, when we will have a national FOID, much like our current Illinois system, which would also allow any holder to purchase any legal firearm from any state. CC would be standardized and national, as well.

 

Imagine all the potential gun owners, living gunless in poverty, who could not vote with us because they couldn't afford the voting card either.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#25 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,905 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 23 November 2018 - 02:19 PM

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the FOID card IF

 

#1-   when we got the card we could then go buy a firearm of any kind ( that is legal ) without a waiting period.

 

#2 - it was still like when they were first introduced , you didn't have to call to double check the buyers legality because they had already been checked out just to get the card.

 

I can remember when I first got my card at the age of 15 I was so proud. I was a certified legal gun owner.  WOW has my opinion ever changed about it since 49 years ago.



#26 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 23 November 2018 - 03:58 PM

I have heard that the reason our CCW fees and training were established are these:

1) at $150, Illinois sits just below the $152.50 imposed by the County of Denver, who adds $100 to the state required $52.20 fee.

2) California law states that training "shall not exceed 16 hours" CA Penal Code 26165.

Aware of these existing laws, {D}a machine used these as backstops to any challenge of them being "unreasonable".

I may be wrong, but it makes sense. Don't kill the critter outright, just strangle it enough to keep it from being able to fight.

Having the highest renewal fee in the country? That may still be grounds for a challenge.

Edited by Tango7, 23 November 2018 - 03:59 PM.

You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#27 chancemccall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 16

Posted 23 November 2018 - 05:32 PM

I know Jerry Brady and he is pro-gun. I have discussed concealed carry with him several times and he is all for concealed carry and our right to self-defense. He does, however, believe in going after criminals who use guns. He may very well be pointing out to the defense attorneys to use a different argument. IANAL. He was one of the States Attorneys who said in 2013 he wouldn’t prosecute someone who concealed carry if that was the only crime after the concealed carry bill passed but had not gone into effect. He came out for constitutional carry along with the Tazewell County States Attorney during that time. This is only a point of information.

 

Thanks. This is an interesting point. That would seem to indicate that the charges for carrying without a permit were on top of some other criminal defense which would make this a less than weak case.


Life Member - NRA

Life Member - SAF

Life Member - GSL

Life Member - ISRA

Charter Member - CMSA

Life Member - SASS

LEOSA carrier

 

 

 


#28 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,459 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 26 November 2018 - 09:38 AM

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the FOID card IF

 

#1-   when we got the card we could then go buy a firearm of any kind ( that is legal ) without a waiting period.

 

#2 - it was still like when they were first introduced , you didn't have to call to double check the buyers legality because they had already been checked out just to get the card.

 

I can remember when I first got my card at the age of 15 I was so proud. I was a certified legal gun owner.  WOW has my opinion ever changed about it since 49 years ago.

Wow your even an older fart then me, I'm not sure what the laws were back then but after I got my card I bought a handgun, at the time I believed that was legal and I was 16. 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#29 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 27 November 2018 - 03:05 PM

I would love to see a "permit to purchase"/Possess type case reach the SCOTUS. I don't know if this is the right one though.

 

Yeah, i think the NYC model is more ripe for a court case than this.


Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#30 Raw Power

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 28 November 2018 - 05:55 AM

 

My personal belief is that the constitution guarantees the right to openly carry arms in public without a license or permit...but not necessarily to conceal carry.

 

The term "bearing arms" does imply open carry. 

 

 

That's not technically correct. "Bearing" in the sense of "bearing arms", means "equipped". Equipped can mean concealed. There is nothing in any definition that indicated otherwise or that "bearing" means openly carried.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users