All Activity

Given that our Founding Fathers didn't restrict private parties from owning the strongest arms of the day (cannons, battleships, etc.) or any other weaker implements that were/could be used as arms, I truly don't believe they cared in what manner We the People chose to bear those arms as long as we maintained the right to defend ourselves and the right to defend The People from the potential risk of an overbearing government. They didn't want anyone to repeat their sacrifice & suffering or allow future overlords in the style of English rulers to degrade the freedoms in this country. They tried to guarantee we had all means possible to do what was needed. Our Founding Fathers were very well studied and connected and likely knew of the varied weapons technology that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, be they small concealable firearms or repeating firearms or "pocketable" French balisong folding knives designed specifically for fighting (and were in existence a century prior to the Bill of Rights) or the concealable tomahawks used in the Revolutionary War or even automatic "switchblades" dating back decades prior to the Founding. The Founding Fathers had just closely witnessed what edged weapons large and small could do in battle and saw the damage indiscrete cannon fire could inflict on enemies (along with collateral damage on innocents) yet added no restrictions in the founding documents related to those arms. They didn't restrict anyone from owning a battleship (with cannons obvious or concealed below deck) that could take over a harbor or ravage a city in the 2A. They also knew arms were advancing/being refined and put in no future restrictions on weapons technology (as it could void the core principle of protection against a potentially superior government). I believe they'd be ashamed that groups today were trying to restrict one type of carry vs. another or one particular type of arms vs. another in today's privileged world after they sacrificed so much for freedom and to guarantee future freedom. George Washington carried a concealed arm (a folding knife). That's good enough for me to know they didn't care about open vs. concealed carry.

Thank you to Trump and all who voted for the American people. We appreciate you!

If this administration isn't going to try to put an under-21 ban (purchase or carry) before the Supreme Court (e.g., the apparent decline of ATF v Reese), then it's going to have to be someone else. "Someone else" is going to have to come from a circuit that has upheld a ban. Of the cases we're tracking in this forum, the choices are:This case (or McCoy) from the 4th Circuit, which upheld a purchase banNRA v Glass from the 11th Circuit, which upheld a purchase banParis v SAF (previously known as Paris v Lara) from the 3rd Circuit, which overturned a carry ban (PA is petitioning for cert, rather than the feds, but I still expect cert to be denied)Meyer v Raoul, which is still in district court, regarding a carry ban from the 7th Circuit, but does anyone expect the 7th Circuit not to uphold the ban? There could be other cases not tracked here, but unless NRA v Glass wins the prize (gets cert), the next most likely candidate(s) is McCoy/Brown.

Euler, can you put it in terms we all understand? :") Where we at here? JQ

I thought we all learned our lesson by now,especially after the mess trump made with bumpstocks. We don't negotiate on rights. Any gun law that says what or how you can carry is an infringement.

My only peeve is when they use we allow concealed carry as an excuse to not allow open carry, that's a compromise we should NOT accept.

Concealed Carry: Because not everyone gets it. Because not everyone shows or understands discretion. Because there are other, fundamental battles to win. Yes, gun rights are human rights. But if I'm in the restaurant, I hope these guys ordered "to-go." https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/chipotle-bans-firearms-at-restaurants-after-texas-demonstration-idUSBREA4K025/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/chipotle-guns-open-carry-texas/

Except that bringing people to your cause requires you to care what they think. Like it or not, you have to be a salesman to win people over. Being prickly to those who are mostly likely to be persuaded over to your side isn't a winning strategy. Save that for the anti-gun politicians. You can't afford to alienate gun owners. I had no idea who you were until this thread, and based on these first few posts and interactions I've come across, you don't strike me as the winning champion I want to hitch my horse to in order to achieve open carry.

I am no historian or lawyer. I see "shall not be infringed" protecting concealed and open. Little pocket pistols have a long history. Claiming a murder with open carry was historical protect as compared to concealed is hard to believe.

For reference, September 16 is the deadline to petition the US Supreme Court for certiorari.

You said four things in one sentence, all but the first are a lie. From September of 2011 to September of 2016, when it expired because I did not renew it, I was the President of a California nonprofit association, not a corporation. My California nonprofit association was never a party to my lawsuit if for no other reason than an association, unlike a corporation, is not a "person" that can be a party to a lawsuit. At its peak, it had over 400 associates. Small in number compared to the so-called gun-rights groups that made little effort to hide their opposition to Open Carry, but evil has always greatly outnumbered the good.

Only open carry is protected by the Second Amendment. In the history of the Anglo-American right to keep and bear arms leading up to 1791, and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, no court had ever held that the Second Amendment protects a right to concealed carry. Throughout the history of the English colonies in America, and after independence, well into the 19th century, the use of a concealed weapon (in both England and the United States) to kill one's opponent was punished by death, without the possibility of pardon or lesser punishment, let alone acquittal which was often the case when the opponents fought fairly with openly carried weapons. The NRA, in its briefs filed in NYSRPA v. Bruen, and all of the Amicus briefs could not cite a single case that held concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment, or that a prohibition on Open Carry made concealed carry a right protected by the Second Amendment. The principal cases cited in Heller and Bruen said that concealed carry is evil. I have never hidden my aversion to concealed carry or my contempt for those who claim the Second Amendment is a right to what you call a "strategic advantage," which is what Heller called a "secret advantage and unmanly assassination." It has always been common for people to rationalize immoral acts to the ignorant; what has changed today is that people either simply don't care about morality and/or parade depravity as a virtue. That is one parade you will never see me marching in.

There's no reason for you to hold her FOID. If the state wants it, it'll ask. Similarly, for the Disposition Record, if the state wants it, it'll ask. There's no need for you to notarize it. The notary stamp is for the cops. It could also be a good idea to talk to a lawyer. You definitely don't want to rely on the cops to tell you the law.

Thank you @Euler - that is helpful. The stuff I have read about Karinas law that went into affect recently scared me so I got everything out of the house yesterday and stored it at a local gun store. She was served with the emergency order of protection today and we were surprised that they did not ask for her FOID or about any firearms in the house. The portal says her FOID is suspended, as opposed to being revoked - maybe there is a distinction there that makes a difference? From https://isp.illinois.gov/Foid/FoidRevoked : If your FOID card is suspended, you are still required to submit a Firearm Disposition Record (FDR) which can be found here, including surrendering your FOID card to law enforcement or a valid FOID cardholder. So if she gives me her FOID to hold and submits the disposition form we are good? There is a place on the form for "Law Enforcement Official’s Signature OR Notary Stamp, Signature and Date" but no related instructions - do we need to get it notarized? I just want to make sure we are set up so she can get her FOID/CCL back when this nonsense is over.

My recollection may be off and I'm not going to waste time pulling up old threads, but I'm fairly sure most of the push-back against you was because you attacked concealed carry and argued that only open carry was covered by the 2A and that concealed carry should be limited in lieu of open carry. Your disdain for concealed carry shows when you call not wanting to be a target 'cowardice' instead of prudence or someone's choice and continuing on to call it immoral to have a strategic advantage if the worst ever happens and you or your family's lives are in danger. Almost everyone here has supported people having the choice between the two but, if due to this being Illinois, feel it is better having concealed only as compared to nothing.

Got my tickets today. Looking forward to it. VooDoo

It removes one layer of infringement. Without removing them a piece at a time, we would never remove any of them (short of a ruling from SCOTUS, perhaps).

I don't see the state doing that - they lost bigly. They have to muddy up McGlynn's decision, and bring it all into question by introducing new avenues of interest balancing. During oral arguments their tactic (including Easterbrook) will be to paint more shade on Bruen as a lousy decision. I bet we get something like Friedman is better law, because the "text and history" test in Bruen is to difficult to understand. I also do not think it would be a good idea for our side to seek a pass on oral arguments. The SCOTUS wants this case to have a big fat extensive record. Waiving oral arguments and skipping a chance to add to the record, could cost us cert. So our lawyers and experts will need to be ready for anything.

Judicial notice is a powerful thing. Being able to say Congress has made clear the state has it wrong is a very good thing.

I'm thankful Todd V is here leading the fight against IL's draconian gun ban.

I think we have to respect the fact that not everyone will agree with open carry. But, we can also expect that disagreement to be voiced with respect. A post that didn't meet that expectation has been removed.

I have places I hang my hat in Bourbonnais, IL Palos Hills, IL and Crown Point, IN.

Take a look at the posts above. You might support Open Carry, but this forum, like every forum, has concealed carriers who attack Open Carry and attack the few of us, like me and Mark Baird (the only two people to ever file a lawsuit against California's Open Carry bans), who have devoted years of our lives fighting for Open Carry. Ironically, these creatures seem to think that we give two cents what they think. But such is the nature of concealed carriers who invariably give the same two reasons why they oppose Open Carry: 1) They are afraid Open Carry will make them a target (cowardice) and, 2) concealed carry gives them a secret advantage (immorality).

So I got it mostly or slightly correct. 😉

The bar looks like it's set pretty HIGH. Not sure if a citizen without military or LE can participate as an instructor? In the NRA application to be an instructor they have boxes for rifle and select fire. In Illinoisistan you probably can't get either of those as the rifle portion is banned for non LE or current military, then there is the "select fire"issue. https://le.nra.org/law-enforcement-training/instructor-certification/ https://le.nra.org/media/7746/recert-renewal_application.pdf