patriot1776 Posted December 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM Share Posted December 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM Wait and see will be the best course just don't get your dander or hopes up yet. No action can be taken until a response from Lisa worm tongue is spat about what she / they plan to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM Share Posted December 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM the antis wrote a new yourk style into their draft. We ain't buying it. We went to court we won. WE and I am not in the mood to walk backwards from that. they were warned. Now we just need to find a couple of votes to seal the deal. How we get there is the path I seek. You see, through all of this maze of the legisalture a fog of war there is a path. My job is to find it, and stay on it. not vear tot he right or vear to the left. Just stay on the path. That is how i see my role. That means writing a bill that takes advantage of the Court situtation and the politics of the legislature. WE know the minefield better than the other side. WE know the players better than the otherside. We know the politics of the issue better than the other side. They have the Mayor who will scream and yell andstamp his feet. But he has a wee bit of a problem hanging around his neck with a murder rate that is better than the Cubs record. They have the Governor huffing and puffing.But if you take his wish list, we may not be that far apart. Understand this, We went to court not once, not twice, not three times. But half a dozen. And we are winning all of them. They only have a little bit of clout and it all comes from other people not the anti-gun groups themselves. And if we put the numbers together that I think we will, the Governor had better sit down with us right quick, or else it won't matter what he wants.I agree with all that Todd,but couldn't ya leave the poor Cubs out of it? Yea I could have, they were only at .377 in 2012. I;m not sure who it hurts more, the Cubs being compared tot he Mayor or the Mayor being compared tot he Cubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted December 29, 2012 at 11:04 PM Share Posted December 29, 2012 at 11:04 PM Hey, that Mayor that you were speaking of, was he wearing a tutu while stomping those feet?? Could be he was just doing his ballerina dance for mr. O !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Destro Posted December 29, 2012 at 11:54 PM Share Posted December 29, 2012 at 11:54 PM I'd rather get shot in the family jewels with a high powered potato gun than have a NYC carry law. No way in heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted December 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM Share Posted December 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM Dont they have any clue that the bill that we will use is the one that Todd is writing? Im tired of these stories already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:10 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:10 AM Todd V, or anyone else who wants to discuss, here's a question. If the courts say that a complete ban on carry is unconstitutioal (which is what I think they said) how can may issue be ok? If I put in an application and get denied, wouldn't that be a complete ban for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:12 AM I'd rather get shot in the family jewels with a high powered potato gun than have a NYC carry law. No way in heck. You sure about that? Getting hit in the boys with a potato gun sucks lol Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Destro Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:18 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:18 AM I'd rather get shot in the family jewels with a high powered potato gun than have a NYC carry law. No way in heck. You sure about that? Getting hit in the boys with a potato gun sucks lol Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2Dunno that's how strong I feel against NYC may issue. It's essentially a ban and would change nothing. Only those with political ties would have access to it, pretty much the way it is already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM Still, the governor has made it clear he wants tough restrictions when it comes to who can carry a gun and where. He argues that those with felony convictions and a history of driving under the influence or domestic violence should not qualify for a permit in Illinois, adding that the state must be equally diligent about denying permits to those with mental illness. Since these people are already banned by existing law and very few want this changed, I think I can compromise and accept this. I don't think that someone that has two DUI convictions from twenty some years ago should be banned from carry - do you Bob? Does anyone here think that if you can get an Illinois FOID card, that convictions on your driving record should disqualify you from your right to carry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ike Posted December 30, 2012 at 01:03 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 01:03 AM Didn't I see on the forum somewhere that NYC has had more homicides than Chicago this year? If so, then it makes perfect sense in the Anti's thought train to follow NYC. They haven't learned that the ban in Chicago is doing any good ,so lets go find a stricter one so we can have less success. Then we will whine for more laws. Geez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted December 30, 2012 at 01:32 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 01:32 AM I'd rather get shot in the family jewels with a high powered potato gun than have a NYC carry law. No way in heck. You sure about that? Getting hit in the boys with a potato gun sucks lol Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2Dunno that's how strong I feel against NYC may issue. It's essentially a ban and would change nothing. Only those with political ties would have access to it, pretty much the way it is already. You got that right. It's a selective ban and only people with money and influence can carry and I can't believe it hasn't been struck down by the courts yet. It was struck down as uncostitutional in Illinois so we can't go from a total ban to a selective ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 30, 2012 at 01:55 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 01:55 AM I'm also thinking, we may actually have to try out constitutional carry for a while, let the meddling control freak socialists get their undies in a bunch and when their blood pressure gets really really high then they can sign off on our carry bill. Another reason the anti-gunners don't want to see constitutional carry - is because when the streets don't run crimson with blood, (like they said it would) and when Illinois doesn't turn into the OK corral, (like they said it would), and when armed robberies, rapes and burglaries start to plummet, the people in those cities like Chicago and Oak Park are going to demand that the BS anti-gun ordinances be repealed. And then the anti-gunners have really completely totally lost. They don't want to see that happen, so they'll deal.Well,you're almost right.What they don't want to lose is the money for the permitting system.I am hoping whatever is being considered has already taken the money out of the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:00 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:00 AM Todd V, or anyone else who wants to discuss, here's a question. If the courts say that a complete ban on carry is unconstitutioal (which is what I think they said) how can may issue be ok? If I put in an application and get denied, wouldn't that be a complete ban for me?The court only ruled on a complete ban for everyone. They did not rule on shall issue. The politics of the thing makes it highly likely that some kind of shall issue LTC will come out of the bill. My guess is the governor will use his amendatory veto power to make some changes to it so he can claim he has protected the citizenry - maybe change the age limit to start at 25 or something else minor like that. Stuff that will be very hard to get the GA to undo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:04 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:04 AM Still, the governor has made it clear he wants tough restrictions when it comes to who can carry a gun and where. He argues that those with felony convictions and a history of driving under the influence or domestic violence should not qualify for a permit in Illinois, adding that the state must be equally diligent about denying permits to those with mental illness. Since these people are already banned by existing law and very few want this changed, I think I can compromise and accept this. I don't think that someone that has two DUI convictions from twenty some years ago should be banned from carry - do you Bob? Does anyone here think that if you can get an Illinois FOID card, that convictions on your driving record should disqualify you from your right to carry? If you have a felony DUI you won't get a FOID card. Isn't the second DUI automatically a felony? I took a look and DUI is not disqualifying for a FOID card so if it is just the garden variety DUI from 20 years ago, then that should not affect one's chances of getting a LTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:13 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:13 AM We were withing a hair's breadth of passing 148, as I understand it we would have if Madigan would have let it go to the floor last spring, no way in h*ll we're going to take NY style. Todd's got the wheel, they're riding in steerage, we're in First Class. Kiss it, anti's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:16 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:16 AM Todd V, or anyone else who wants to discuss, here's a question. If the courts say that a complete ban on carry is unconstitutioal (which is what I think they said) how can may issue be ok? If I put in an application and get denied, wouldn't that be a complete ban for me?The court only ruled on a complete ban for everyone. They did not rule on shall issue. The politics of the thing makes it highly likely that some kind of shall issue LTC will come out of the bill. My guess is the governor will use his amendatory veto power to make some changes to it so he can claim he has protected the citizenry - maybe change the age limit to start at 25 or something else minor like that. Stuff that will be very hard to get the GA to undo. IANAL but.....I think the logic in Moore is that you can ban open carry, or you can ban conceal carry, but you can't ban both. That's unconstitutional. May issue vs shall issue depends on the level of scrutiny, that is the importance of the government's interest weighed against the individual's rights. Heller established the 2nd Amendment as recognizing an individual right. McDonald established that the individual right applies against the states, and not just the federal government. Moore establishes that the individual right applies outside the home. Logically, then, it follows that a may issue scheme can exist only in the context of an open carry right (if strict scrutiny is applied), as the application of may issue for concealed carry would deny significant numbers of citizens the exercise of their 2A right outside the home. IMO, that kind of scheme could be easily likened to a law requiring prior permission before exercising the 1st Amendment outside the home, or literacy tests and poll taxes for voting. As for Age 25 for carry, how can you justify that when 21 is the traditional age of majority, and for almost all matters currently 18 is the age of majority? I know there is an ongoing (or recently decided case at a lower level) about gun purchases and 18 versus 21 age limits, but I don't recall the particulars. I for one, do not want my 22 year old daughter disqualified for LTC because Governor Jello wants to please his base one more time before he is retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:20 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:20 AM Todd V, or anyone else who wants to discuss, here's a question. If the courts say that a complete ban on carry is unconstitutioal (which is what I think they said) how can may issue be ok? If I put in an application and get denied, wouldn't that be a complete ban for me?The court only ruled on a complete ban for everyone. They did not rule on shall issue. The politics of the thing makes it highly likely that some kind of shall issue LTC will come out of the bill. My guess is the governor will use his amendatory veto power to make some changes to it so he can claim he has protected the citizenry - maybe change the age limit to start at 25 or something else minor like that. Stuff that will be very hard to get the GA to undo. IANAL but.....I think the logic in Moore is that you can ban open carry, or you can ban conceal carry, but you can't ban both. That's unconstitutional. May issue vs shall issue depends on the level of scrutiny, that is the importance of the government's interest weighed against the individual's rights. Heller established the 2nd Amendment as recognizing an individual right. McDonald established that the individual right applies against the states, and not just the federal government. Moore establishes that the individual right applies outside the home. Logically, then, it follows that a may issue scheme can exist only in the context of an open carry right (if strict scrutiny is applied), as the application of may issue for concealed carry would deny significant numbers of citizens the exercise of their 2A right outside the home. IMO, that kind of scheme could be easily likened to a law requiring prior permission before exercising the 1st Amendment outside the home, or literacy tests and poll taxes for voting. As for Age 25 for carry, how can you justify that when 21 is the traditional age of majority, and for almost all matters currently 18 is the age of majority? I know there is an ongoing (or recently decided case at a lower level) about gun purchases and 18 versus 21 age limits, but I don't recall the particulars. I for one, do not want my 22 year old daughter disqualified for LTC because Governor Jello wants to please his base one more time before he is retired. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:23 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:23 AM As far as Im concerned if 18 is old enough to join the Army it's old enough to carry, drink, smoke, or whatever.... As far as NY law goes I see conflict with Judge Posners decision... SAF just got more $$$ from me and I got a nice plaque to hang in the gun room... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:59 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 02:59 AM If you have a felony DUI you won't get a FOID card. Isn't the second DUI automatically a felony? I took a look and DUI is not disqualifying for a FOID card so if it is just the garden variety DUI from 20 years ago, then that should not affect one's chances of getting a LTC. I read the language of HB148 and was willing to live with it at the time. It said: Section 25. Qualifications of an applicant for a license.The Department shall issue a license to an applicant completingan application in accordance with Section 30 of this Act if the person: (g) does not chronically and habitually abusealcoholic beverages as evidenced by the applicant having 2or more convictions for violating Section 11-501 of theIllinois Vehicle Code or similar provision of a localordinance within 5 years preceding the date of theapplication, or if the applicant has elected treatmentunder the supervision of a licensed program in accordancewith the Alcoholism and Other Drug Abuse and Dependency Act What Quinn is saying now sounds like he wants to include anyone with "a history". To me that sounds like one conviction maybe, two convictions most certainly could be banned. Just discussing these things on an open forum can be dangerous. Especially when you say you are ready to making "compromises." Why do we need to compromise? The 7th CA sided with us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Stu Posted December 30, 2012 at 03:25 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 03:25 AM The more we talk about this, the more ideas we give the antis, There are plenty of them watching this and other forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 30, 2012 at 03:43 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 03:43 AM The more we talk about this, the more ideas we give the antis, There are plenty of them watching this and other forums.They have plenty of ideas of their own. What we discuss here won't change much of anything. You guys are way too paranoid about this. In any case, it appears to me that the governor is just agreeing with the proposals for eligibility put forth in HB148, which is a compromise I am willing to accept since it is not a compromise. it is all but capitulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:22 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:22 AM The more we talk about this, the more ideas we give the antis, There are plenty of them watching this and other forums.They have plenty of ideas of their own. What we discuss here won't change much of anything. You guys are way too paranoid about this. In any case, it appears to me that the governor is just agreeing with the proposals for eligibility put forth in HB148, which is a compromise I am willing to accept since it is not a compromise. it is all but capitulation. That is NOT what our leaders here tell us, Bob. So it's not paranoia - it's fact. Our opposition reads through our threads to glean information. If you don't believe me ask Todd, Abolt or Molly. And so what ever is said about "compromise" can indeed change the course of future negotiations. We are far better off discussing such things as guns, gear and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vess1 Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:44 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:44 AM The more we talk about this, the more ideas we give the antis, There are plenty of them watching this and other forums.They have plenty of ideas of their own. What we discuss here won't change much of anything. You guys are way too paranoid about this. In any case, it appears to me that the governor is just agreeing with the proposals for eligibility put forth in HB148, which is a compromise I am willing to accept since it is not a compromise. it is all but capitulation. That is NOT what our leaders here tell us, Bob. So it's not paranoia - it's fact. Our opposition reads through our threads to glean information. I hope they read my posts. Although, Im usually so demeaning and abusive towards them that Im probably on their ignore lists by now. Id like to hope that I may have reached one or two of them with an IQ over 10 and converted them, but not likely. You cant reason with emotional little cowards. Take Michael Moore for instance. Hes soooo intellectually superior to all these gun nuts......until its 3 am and somebodys breaking into his house. He'll be on the phone crying and begging for the police to get there. Sometime during the 30 to 45 min wait maybe he can reason with the intruder like he does in the movies? Or does he have armed guards too? Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:45 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:45 AM The more we talk about this, the more ideas we give the antis, There are plenty of them watching this and other forums.They have plenty of ideas of their own. What we discuss here won't change much of anything. You guys are way too paranoid about this. I offer you this, Bob. Please note that Todd is concerned with the content of member posts and that we "not educate the other side." He even goes to the extent that he instructs Mods to delete questions or comments that are too specific. Why do you suppose that is, Bob? Paranoia?? Here is a draft of the Governor's gun ban they are shopping around. read it, understand it. BUT lets not educate the other side. Keep questions simple and not TOO analytical. I'm heading to the capitol, so I'm going to ask the mods to watch this thread for me and delete anything that gets too specific. We are already hearing they have to tweak it cause their is push back on the manufacturering side of things and the jobs issue is sticking with people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted December 30, 2012 at 06:44 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 06:44 AM I trust Todds judgement on the opsec, so I'll keep it to PMs. That being said, I was under the impression that Posner wrote that may issue probably won't hold up, probably won't stop the crooked antis from trying. I wrote all my reps yesterday about the bans, and my local ones about working on a ccw bill too, I plan to call them after the new year.If I ever get a chance, I owe Todd, molly and a few others here a beverage of their choice, you guys are all working hard over the holidays and I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted December 30, 2012 at 07:57 AM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 07:57 AM May issue shall issue is before CA4, the case is Woollard v Gallagher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woollard_v._Sheridan The orals were very discouraging. IMO King and Davis were basically looking for a way - any way for them not to do their jobs. They wanted to send it back down or send it up, but they didn't want to have to tax their brains with actually thinking about the constitution, or Heller or McDonald. Too much reading for them I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:17 PM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:17 PM To all the antis, here is our compromise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:23 PM Share Posted December 30, 2012 at 04:23 PM Todd V, or anyone else who wants to discuss, here's a question. If the courts say that a complete ban on carry is unconstitutioal (which is what I think they said) how can may issue be ok? If I put in an application and get denied, wouldn't that be a complete ban for me?The court only ruled on a complete ban for everyone. They did not rule on shall issue. The politics of the thing makes it highly likely that some kind of shall issue LTC will come out of the bill. My guess is the governor will use his amendatory veto power to make some changes to it so he can claim he has protected the citizenry - maybe change the age limit to start at 25 or something else minor like that. Stuff that will be very hard to get the GA to undo. Yes the holding does not address may issue, but the dicta does. And the 7th has already clearly stated in overruling the district courts, that you can not ignore the basis and reasoning applied to reach the holding in deciding issues falling outside of the specific holding. Most of the facts and reasoning discussed by the 7th were not contained in the holding, but in the dicta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.