Jump to content

IL AG Lisa Madigan files for 30 day extension to file cert


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

We need a bill to get passed. I think a lot of you are placing way too much confidence into the hands of SCOTUS. If Lisa appeals and SCOTUS takes the case, it will likely be at least 18 months until we have a decision. And then (assuming they even rule in our favor) they will likely agree with Posner that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. They will NOT craft a bill for us, they will not be specific as to where guns must be allowed vs. where they can be banned. They will merely say our UUW statute is unconstitutional because it does not allow for carry. Then we will be right back where we are. Chicago vs. the rest of the State. May issue vs. shall issue. More political garbage, just 2 years down the road. And there is no guarantee that SCOTUS will rule in our favor. They could overturn Posner's decision. Let's get a bill, to make this a moot issue. This is almost blasphemy for me to say, but I am starting to think we should agree to a May Issue for Chicago, as long as the rest of the state is Shall Issue. At least then the issue is moot, and it will be out of Lisa's and SCOTUS's hands. Then we can deal with fighting against Chicago's may issue.

 

This is one of the most likely and accurate assessments Ive read here. Totally agree. Even after a 50/50 chance SCOTUS decision going our way, were back where we are at right now. Only a year and a half and who knows how many defenseless victims later. It takes a cold SOB to be against self defense for political reasons.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not carve outs. Youre already playing into their hands and it isn't a chicago carve out. It's state-wide may issue. Good moral character is subjective as is proper reason under Raoul's bill. That is may issue. **** them. One state, one law. No selling out because once a bill is signed into law its gonna be damn near impossible to change it. Think of how long this has gone on. MORE lawsuits. Who knows what the courts will look like then. No. No. No.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

The most recent e-mail from ISRA about the Madigan games said alot. They have taken a hard line stance and said they will not accept a may issue bill. Any lawmaker that supports a may issue bill will be receiving an F grade now. They said they have not worked this hard and spent this much money in court "to bring home half a loaf."

 

So their stance at least should still appease some here. If may issue passes it wont just be the antis fault. It means our side gave in and then were partially to blame for the future innocent victims.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. No court carry, she's hedging bets. She'll file for cert if Madigan doesnt pass something by June 9th. With Raoul "reworking" his bill (still may issue), if that's what they're gonna try to pass then lets go to SCOTUS. Proper cause is not defined and it is still in the amendment so still may issue.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

It's going to court either way so let's run a may issue and pass it so that while the gears of the judicial system grind on and on atleast there will only be 3 million people waiting around instead of all 13 million of us. What do you guys think is so unfair about that?

 

Yea very unfair!! We need it the most in Chicago! I was sitting on my porch when 2 young thugs pulled up in front of my house. The passager had a gun in his front pocket, with his hand on the handle! Luckily I had protection with me, this guy then got out the car walked up to some girl , I told everyone get inside. He walked back got in the car as he watched my porch. I knew then he knew I saw his weapon.

We all in the State need a Shall Bill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by voters you mean the dead and those that vote 6 times in one election then yes.

 

Fraud is a given, everybody knows that elections are rigged in this state and yet nobody does anything about it. Lisa liberal could use her time and energy to clean up that mess, but instead she's too busy being a tyrant. We could beat it, but too many people are happy to be shackled to the chains of the nanny state to overcome it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to have to risk going over the cliff, either. What about the theory from another thread that Mike will finally have to step in at the end of May or early June, try and fail to pass further may-issue bills, and grudgingly allow 0997 to come up and pass in order to save Lisa from having to pursue an appeal to SCOTUS and the resulting potential risk to her political ambitions?

 

We get shall-issue, preemption, and mass-transit carry because he recognizes the eventual inevitability of LTC and places a higher value on advancing her to the governor's office. I may be living in a dream world, but I'm still hopeful...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my two cents, (consider inflation, not worth much) Lisa filed for the extension, to apply pressure to our side to give a carve out or may issue. The cases she quoted in her letter had to do with could a state restrict carry. 7DC ruled a ban was a violation of 2A. Hold the course, Shall issue, preemption, one state one law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she appeals, the time lne looks like the case would be set for conferance in september. Then If accepted, maybe up fpr orals in December. Decision in march, june at the latest. So we would haveat most 12 months. With the Court.

 

Orals would hopefully give us a tell about which way they are going.

 

Should we prevail, then inwould expect the general assembly to,come back almost immediately for a special session on carry. And then deal with the veto pronto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are people coming up with a 50% chance of Moore being overturned? Because of ObamaCare? Let's just see what happens. We'll know by the end of the month. All in favor of screwing Chicago that's fine you're entitled to an opinion but think of Otis McDonald first. Maybe write him a letter telling him "Thanks for fighting for my rights, now I'm gonna take yours."

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that she may not file cert since doing so would interfere with her political career, however if she did and they accepted they may be compelled by the continuing body count in Chicago to hear and rule on the case in short order or they may judge without hearing argument by merely extending the right to armed self defense to outside the home.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a bill to get passed. I think a lot of you are placing way too much confidence into the hands of SCOTUS. If Lisa appeals and SCOTUS takes the case, it will likely be at least 18 months until we have a decision. And then (assuming they even rule in our favor) they will likely agree with Posner that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. They will NOT craft a bill for us, they will not be specific as to where guns must be allowed vs. where they can be banned. They will merely say our UUW statute is unconstitutional because it does not allow for carry. Then we will be right back where we are. Chicago vs. the rest of the State. May issue vs. shall issue. More political garbage, just 2 years down the road. And there is no guarantee that SCOTUS will rule in our favor. They could overturn Posner's decision. Let's get a bill, to make this a moot issue. This is almost blasphemy for me to say, but I am starting to think we should agree to a May Issue for Chicago, as long as the rest of the state is Shall Issue. At least then the issue is moot, and it will be out of Lisa's and SCOTUS's hands. Then we can deal with fighting against Chicago's may issue.

 

This is one of the most likely and accurate assessments Ive read here. Totally agree. Even after a 50/50 chance SCOTUS decision going our way, were back where we are at right now. Only a year and a half and who knows how many defenseless victims later. It takes a cold SOB to be against self defense for political reasons.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

Respectfully disagree with both of you. To oversimplify, Heller recognized armed self defense in the home as a "core" 2A right. Posner expanded that core to include self-defense outside the home. But his opinion is only valid in the 7th Circuit, and could falter under a different SCOTUS. Advancing Posner's logic to SCOTUS now, as opposed to later, not only helps us hold our gains long term, but it helps the whole country.

 

Consider the circumstances. The most hard-left-wing president ever in American history, already into his second term, totally committed to destroying private gun ownership, and we are still in possession of the Heller majority. That. Is. Amazing. Something like a goal line stand that nobody thought was possible. And we should be grateful every day that our "front five" all remain well and productive, because if they can use Moore to expand Heller's 2A "Core" to include armed self-defense outside the home, that will tilt the field of battle in our favor everywhere, here, NY, CO, you name it.

 

Is there a possibility we could lose? Yes, but as Skinny has already pointed out, we could lose worse by getting in bed with a bad carry bill. If we accept "Flypaper Carry" (carry so oppressive it makes it easy for the machine to pick us off or scare us off) or "Beggar's Carry" (outright "may issue" or "shall issue" predicated on vagaries like "good moral character"), then that is what we will have, forever, and we guarantee the machine will win eventually. They will have an edge on us, that we gave them, and will use it relentlessly to wear us down over time.

 

Which is why I picked my tag line from Churchill. He understood this kind of conflict. He understood what it took to get through a long hard fight. Don't get too giddy with our successes or too depressed with our loses, but keep on summoning the courage, every year, every day, every hour, to stay in the fight until the OTHER guy folds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading all the speculation etc. about what this means and finally decided to voice my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth.

 

First, I personally HOPE she does file, and that SCOTUS takes up the case. I believe SCOTUS is waiting for this case and that's why they turned down the one in New York. Why?

 

From the Heller ruling...

 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

Also, in neither Heller or McDonald does the court refer to the right to "concealed carry" but instead the court refers to the right to bear arms. The New York case was mainly about the right to a concealed carry permit, and that, IMO, is not guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. In the light of the above highlighted portion, I believe the high court feels the same, and here's what I think SCOTUS has in mind.

 

Since Shepard/Moore has to do with a total ban on carry SCOTUS can now answer the question, "is carrying a loaded and readily accessible firearm on ones person for the purpose of self defense a RIGHT? I think the court's decision on that one would be fairly straight forward and very hard to twist to mean anything besides what is says.

 

A decision that would state plainly that the right to OPENLY carry a readily accessible and loaded firearm is THE right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. However, states, etc, may restrict the carry of a CONCEALED firearm if they so wish. To me, this is where the "concealed carry" movement has gone wrong.

 

Instead of insisting that we have the right to carry a concealed handgun we should be fighting for the right to CARRY a gun. This is the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and is the right we should be fighting for. That said, I'm not opposed to concealed carry but would be comfortable either way.

 

Think of it, if we stand pat and refuse to accept anything but a "shall issue, state wide bill with preemption and NO RESTRICTIONS other than those already federally mandated, we'll most likely end up in SCOTUS, which is where ALL of us should want to end up.

 

It is my understanding that SCOTUS can only answer the question put before them. In the Heller case it was 'can the city/state/feds TOTALLY ban gun possession. SCOTUS took that one as far as they could. They ruled that they could not and even went so far as to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own firearms for self defense in the home, and even established that we have the right to own arms "in common use at the time" which means any "assault weapon ban" would be unconstitutional because those guns are in common use.

 

They furthered this in McDonald by ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states (remember Heller was in DC and therefore a "federal entity", not a state). This laid the ground work for the Shepard/Moore decision by the 7th.

 

If asked the right questions, ie. "Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the RIGHT to bear arms outside of the home?" The answer is undeniably YES and that would be, IMO, the ruling of the court.

 

If, and I hope it does even though it will take longer to get what we want, this case goes to SCOTUS, I foresee a ruling that states that while the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense is guaranteed under 2A, the right to concealed carry is not. This would be in line with the actual wording of the 2A and historical precedent in regards to the carry of concealed firearms.

 

The results of such a ruling would have repercussions nation wide. In New York it wouldn't matter if you got turned down for a CCW because you could carry openly. Same in any other state or city that has a "may issue" law. What we would end up with would be nation wide open carry. If states wanted to allow citizens to carry concealed they could, but that would be up to the discretion of each particular state. I would predict a bunch of laws being changed to "shall issue" fairly quickly. States could then ask for a background check and licensing fee, since they would be for a "privilege" not a "right".

 

When faced with the choice of everyone carrying openly, with no mandated training etc, the state of Illinois and other states will quickly pass laws allowing concealed carry. Why? Because even those opposed to carry would rather have concealed carry than open. It's the old "out of sight, out of mind" adage. The sight of thousands of citizens with guns strapped to their hips in plain sight would terrify them, so they would want concealed carry so that they don't have to see the guns. LOL Also, since carrying concealed is/would be a privilege they could regulate it more, ie require training, etc.

 

As far as those wanting to allow a Chicago carve out or may issue just so we can get a bill passed quickly....

 

That's like being up one TD, with 30 seconds left on the clock, first and goal from the 1 yard line, and just handing the opposing team the ball. NO coach in their right mind would do that. Instead they would drive the ball into the end zone and seal the win.

 

We're in the "red zone" here folks, now is NOT the time to start making concessions. Now is the time to batten down the butterflies, double check the play to make sure you know your part, and win this one, not only for us, but for ALL of America, and for future generations to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As stated before, we may never again have a court that will rule that the Constitution guarantees the right to carry outside the home. But I promise we WILL have a court willing to rule it doesn't extend beyond the home. THAT is why I believe a SCOTUS ruling would be the best outcome. If a shall issue bill does pass you can bet SCOTUS will take Woollard though. It's the only one left on its plate and much better than Kachalsky so not like I'd trade a shall issue with preemption law for a SCOTUS ruling. I'm saying in the long run, SCOTUS taking this would lock it in and make it practically irreversible unless they dump the 2nd and 14th.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, what makes you (collectively) think that "may issue" under Madigan control would allow you to get a CCW permit? A Madigan "may issue" permit will be a hundred times harder to get than a Hawaii CCW permit. Or did you all forget that Hawaii has CCW, but no normal citizen qualifies for a permit.

 

It will only be a matter of time before Madigan, the Machine, and their IL court system to contort ANY "may issue" legislation to become "no issue" except to those clouted such as Trotter.

 

Anybody advocating a "may issue" or "carve out" might as well leave these forums and sign up to be a campaign volunteer for both Madigans. Your short-sightedness will be your own undoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, what makes you (collectively) think that "may issue" under Madigan control would allow you to get a CCW permit? A Madigan "may issue" permit will be a hundred times harder to get than a Hawaii CCW permit. Or did you all forget that Hawaii has CCW, but no normal citizen qualifies for a permit.

 

It will only be a matter of time before Madigan, the Machine, and their IL court system to contort ANY "may issue" legislation to become "no issue" except to those clouted such as Trotter.

 

Anybody advocating a "may issue" or "carve out" might as well leave these forums and sign up to be a campaign volunteer for both Madigans. Your short-sightedness will be your own undoing.

 

Who in the world is wanting a may issue? There is only a few wanting a carve out, I for one want the original hb997. Or even scotus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

putting our fate in scotus's hands is not always a good option...only takes one lil phrase to prove scotus will screw the public in a heart beat "obamacare"

 

To be blunt at this point we don't have control over putting 'our' case it in SCOTUS's hands, this is all in Lisa's hands now... IMO we need to put the question into the SCOTUS's hands and start to get an answer of what the 2nd covers or doesn't cover... It's going to get to the SCOTUS whether we want it to or not in the future, we can hope it gets there with judges that have ruled in our favor already, the other side of the coin is IMO much more bleak... And until the SCOTUS rules we will continue to get our rights infringed upon, and IMO that is not acceptable any longer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...