Lou Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:22 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:22 PM From the latest Tribune article:Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has repeatedly sponsored concealed weapons legislation, hailed the measure as a “mandate."“The justices more or less said Illinois has a mandate to get something passed within 180 days… to pass a concealed-carry law in the state of Illinois,” said Phelps, a Democrat from Downstate Harrisburg.“I never thought we’d get a victory of that magnitude,” Phelps said.Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:23 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:23 PM So can this just be delayed to infinity from countless appeals from the state? I really do not think this will happen. Madigan (Lisa) cannpt take it to SCOTUS for fear that SCOTUS will ruule against her, thus striking down "may issue" all over the country.2. Todd is in the driver's seat. If they come up with a Bill we don't like, we can delay a vote until the 180 days is over which i have (very aptly) named the "concealed carry cliff".3. If they can't get a Bill done in 180 days, your FOID allows carry open or concealed. The newscasters are already talking about it. June 9th is officailly concealed carry cliff!! that made me laugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoSigFan Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:25 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:25 PM I hope this spells the end of Chicago's silly ordinance and CFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysonu74 Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:27 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:27 PM Love the sounds of this---- "The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:28 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:28 PM I hope this spells the end of Chicago's silly ordinance and CFP. Eventually, I suppose. But at the very least it means their ban on carrying will go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whosawmike Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:31 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:31 PM BEST WEEK EVER!! (I had an amazing day yesterday) A favorable ruling AND I see that Bud is back! Doubly good day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:32 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:32 PM In sum, the empirical literature on the effectsof allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establisha pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.... Anyway the Supreme Court made clearin Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to beararms depend on casualty counts. Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!) Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights. The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushyfan24 Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:32 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:32 PM (edited) I am so glad i was dead wrong about how i thought this ruling would come down. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2 Edited December 11, 2012 at 07:33 PM by bushyfan24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:33 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:33 PM YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:37 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:37 PM From the Sun Times: The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. 2013?? What's wrong with 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:39 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:39 PM Oh no, I just remembered....the world is going to end in 10 days. No CCW for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:39 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:39 PM I must admit I thought the chances were against us at this level, but glad to see it, even if the 180 days could become an indefinite period of time until SCOTUS gets it shot at it. It is still in the wait and see what happens phase, but it is good to see. I wonder how SCOTUS deals with the circuit split that we now have? I think they are going to have to hear a case in the 2013 session. Probably not enough time to get it in this session. The way the thing is worded makes me think there is a good chance the court does not give the state any additional time and their only hope is to get SCOTUS to give them that time, and I have no idea how that would go down. I think it bodes well for some kind of LTC by the end of 2013 in IL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:40 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:40 PM Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:40 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:40 PM I am very interested to hear the statements of Quinn, Rahm, and others in the next day or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:41 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:41 PM Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately? My understanding is that it all depends on what the bill that is proposed allows for. If we push through a bill that preempts home rule, then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:43 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:43 PM Congratulations Everyone!!! Now,....Let's everybody get behind Todd!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LYU370 Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM Let's hope the legislature drafts a good Right to Carry bill, not just a concealed carry bill. I would hate to be busted just because someone caught a glimpse of my weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM In sum, the empirical literature on the effectsof allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establisha pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.... Anyway the Supreme Court made clearin Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to beararms depend on casualty counts. Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!) Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights. The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions. I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:44 PM Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately? not if we insist on complete preemption to the field of regulation of arms. might as well get rid of the silly knife rules a lot of places have as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobes Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:45 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:45 PM I am very interested to hear the statements of Quinn, Rahm, and others in the next day or two. Don't forget Chicago's very own father, Father Pfleger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:46 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:46 PM I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it. I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:48 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:48 PM I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it. I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point. Where's the split?Here they ruled on a complete ban. No recourse, no ability to carry at all in any way in any place.Other rulings have been about places that had a permit system and required "good cause" or some other non-sense.I dont see the split, but then again I am not a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:48 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:48 PM Let's hope the legislature drafts a good Right to Carry bill, not just a concealed carry bill. I would hate to be busted just because someone caught a glimpse of my weapon. As it has been said, "Todd is in the driver's seat." Have faith in what Todd will push forward from here. He won't miss a big gaping hole such as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravyboy77 Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:49 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:49 PM Todd says that all the compromises that were made in the previous legislation.....just went out the window. lol http://www.chicagotr...0,7034171.story"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window." This is unbelieable!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM In sum, the empirical literature on the effectsof allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establisha pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.... Anyway the Supreme Court made clearin Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to beararms depend on casualty counts. Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!) Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights. The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions. I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it. Well said Lou - my take as well - SCOTUS has already basically decided this- no need to retrace footsteps.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:54 PM (edited) I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it. I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point. Where's the split?Here they ruled on a complete ban. No recourse, no ability to carry at all in any way in any place.Other rulings have been about places that had a permit system and required "good cause" or some other non-sense.I dont see the split, but then again I am not a lawyer. a permit that is all but impossible to obtain is not far from a system of no carry at all. I am surprised the state did not claim that one can carry while hunting so there really was no absolutely ban. I do not think it would have made any real difference though. I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS take several cases and roll them into a single opinion. probably not until the fall 2013 session though. No reason to wait though. Hard to say what SCOTUS might do and better to get what we can while can. Edited December 11, 2012 at 07:56 PM by bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:58 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 07:58 PM But carrying while hunting doesn't satisfy the carrying for personal protection that was mentioned numerous times in the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:07 PM I just thank God that I was wrong in my beliefs on Illinois having Concealed carry. This just instills in me the knowledge that Chicago does not have everything or everyone in their hip pocket. I am glad that the judges in this ruling refered to the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings for their issuance of this ruling. This is based on the Constitution and law not some stupid Chicago whim. Maybe now Chicago will thing twice before attacking the Constitution again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:11 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:11 PM Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately? My understanding is that it all depends on what the bill that is proposed allows for. If we push through a bill that preempts home rule, then no. I would say even with a preemption of home rule you could still have trouble. Down in Florida the STATE has preemption of ALL firearms laws yet some localities continue to illegally pass and enforce their own firearms laws. In the case of Florida you have a legislature and population hostile to such so you see pushback in the state house.Do you really see Madigan pushing against an Illegal Chicago or Cook County law? It would take another lawsuit or two which would be won after a few years. The WAR is not over, the battle is simply over. It was a great big battle that took a long time. We can rest up a little bit but the next battle will be coming before you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:11 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:11 PM But carrying while hunting doesn't satisfy the carrying for personal protection that was mentioned numerous times in the decision. It would have been a strategy that probably would have failed, but I am somewhat surprised they did not at least make the attempt to deflect the complete ban argument. The right to self defense is making a comeback that is underlying a lot of this. That is maybe more important long term than the right to keep and bear firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now