Jump to content

SAF SUES ILLINOIS OVER BAN ON CARRYING GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE

Chris

By Chris
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

bhannah Member

bhannah

Posted
Posted

Excuse me if i dont't jump up and down.

 

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

 

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

 

 

Well Todd NRA should have done this YEARS ago...

 

Kudos SAF

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xmikex Member

xmikex

Posted
Posted

My quick thoughts on the matter:

 

1) Local folks have worked VERY hard on the legislative end and deserve an incredible amount of credit and praise for all their hard work.

2) Having an outside group come in with legislation and potentially "hijack" all the trailblazing you've done on an issue has got to be incredibly frustrating.

3) We need to fight (as others have noted) on multiple fronts.

4) IL. legislators are not going to be threatened by legislation at all.

-If we lose - it's business as usual.

-If we win, they'll just quickly put together very restrictive CCW legislation that WILL pass.

-IL. will NOT get "Constitutional Carry" - though it would be awesome if we did.

5) SAF is a solid group and helped with the McDonald v Chicago case. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

6) If people remember, the Heller v. DC case was NOT supported by the NRA initially - they were worried that the SCOTUS would vote against us. Fortunately they were wrong and they DID end up getting on board with Gura. B)

7) The NRA just announced their CCW in IL NRA Files Suit Against Unconstitutional Ban on Carrying Firearms for Self-Defense in Illinois :rolleyes:

8) I'm very glad to see cases being pushed in IL - we're on interesting legal ground here and I'm pretty convinced that the Maryland V. Williams (see post #6 for the case details) would do nothing for those of us in IL. as the scope could easily be limited to transport of a firearm - which IL. has already addressed through legislation.

9) Let's kick some a**! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bhannah Member

bhannah

Posted
Posted

NRA and SAF need to work together!!!

We need to attack on all fronts YES!!

But getting all scattered on one front is going to do nothing but split up the support..

I am for SAF suit ...well screw you buddy NRA all the way...

In fighting is going to kill us...

This is a lesson I have had a hard time learning as most of you know...

 

 

 

But as it has been seen it looks like the NRA has written off the SAF suit…

 

So here we go again…

 

More infighting, more name calling, let’s leave our ego’s at home this time what say you.

 

Let’s just get it done….

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Talonap Member

Talonap

Posted
Posted

Just asking... Why do people always bring up Heller an Mcdonald when they talk about carrying a concealed weapon? The two cases actually had nothing to do with carrying outside the home.

 

 

Au Contraire mon ami'. You've been listening to the opposition too long. Heller states, Section 1, "Operative Clause" paragraph c., page 19 in my copy:

 

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of

 

these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee

 

the individual right to possess and carry weapons in

 

case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed

 

by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

 

We look to this because it has always been widely understood

 

that the Second Amendment, like the First and

 

Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The

 

very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes

 

the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it

 

"shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v.

 

Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right

 

granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner

 

dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The

 

Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

It gives the INDIVIDUAL right to Possess and Carry in case of confrontation. The antis pick out this section: Syllabus, Section 1.:

 

 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

They conveniently forget to read the words, "such as" and "lawful purposes".

 

McDonald simply applied the Second to the States. Heller most definitely says that we, as individuals, have the inalienable right, confirmed by the Constitution to possess and carry a weapon in case of confrontation. NOT limited to the home. It does leave the door open to "some" restrictions as to "sensitive places" etc, but says that total bans are unconstitutional. One mistake that was made in the Heller case was making the plea specific to the home. But sometimes that's done intentionally to gain the court's favor, and then addressed further in another case.

 

 

 

I live in Crook County - what do you expect? :rolleyes: Thanks for setting me straight on this! :thumbsup: Good explaination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GlockShooter Member

GlockShooter

Posted
Posted

NRA and SAF need to work together!!!

We need to attack on all fronts YES!!

But getting all scattered on one front is going to do nothing but split up the support..

I am for SAF suit ...well screw you buddy NRA all the way...

In fighting is going to kill us...

This is a lesson I have had a hard time learning as most of you know...

 

 

 

But as it has been seen it looks like the NRA has written off the SAF suit…

 

So here we go again…

 

More infighting, more name calling, let’s leave our ego’s at home this time what say you.

 

Let’s just get it done….

 

I haven't really noticed any infighting. Just a lot of people happy that both cases have been filed.

 

No doubt both cases have been in the works for months or longer. Just because they were filed separately doesn't mean anything was done out of spite.

 

Lets all take a deep breath and move forward without so much assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bhannah Member

bhannah

Posted
Posted

NRA and SAF need to work together!!!

We need to attack on all fronts YES!!

But getting all scattered on one front is going to do nothing but split up the support..

I am for SAF suit ...well screw you buddy NRA all the way...

In fighting is going to kill us...

This is a lesson I have had a hard time learning as most of you know...

 

 

 

But as it has been seen it looks like the NRA has written off the SAF suit…

 

So here we go again…

 

More infighting, more name calling, let’s leave our ego’s at home this time what say you.

 

Let’s just get it done….

 

I haven't really noticed any infighting. Just a lot of people happy that both cases have been filed.

 

No doubt both cases have been in the works for months or longer. Just because they were filed separately doesn't mean anything was done out of spite.

 

Lets all take a deep breath and move forward without so much assumption.

 

Excuse me if i dont't jump up and down.

 

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

 

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

 

Sorry if I took the above quote as name calling or infighting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
USArmyRet Member

USArmyRet

Posted
Posted

This has hit the STL CH 4 News on-line and I'm sure it will be on the TV at five too.

 

 

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/IL-residents-sue-to-allow-concealed-weapons-121801559.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sigma Member

Sigma

Posted
Posted

Cant wait to see their response. They will try to argue Heller all over again. Guns are bad, people gonna get killed and I bet the 300 people killed by CCW carriers somehow makes it to the court room.

 

Then they will try to push the Heeler decision aside because you know it only allows guns in the HOME

 

Been a SAF and NRA member for years. I hope we all support both and become members of both.

 

What would have happened if Daley would have simply let the 70+ man have a gun. We wouldnt have McDonald. But anti gunners are to stubborn. Which is why they will not see HB148 as a way out. They will fight thinking they will win.

 

What will a victory mean for states that are May issue? Good stuff huh

 

Wait til my anit rep hears about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drdoom Member

drdoom

Posted
Posted

"...But anti gunners are to stubborn...."

 

"...Wait til my anit rep hears about this..."

 

So far as I'm concerned, the anti-gun crowd and everyone in it are useful idiots. I encourage anyone with an anti-gun rep to forward copies of the briefs. It'll nice to have both open/concealed carry in this state after this crap is sorted out. The legislative cronies had their chance, now we deal our trump card and get all the chips (yum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joeyl Member

Joeyl

Posted
Posted

I'm thinking of a letter to strictly the Chicago dem. state reps. Using Bud's ideas. Any opinions. Maybe it's the right time to rattle a few cages?

 

Rep-------

 

As an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, I thank you for your no vote on HB148. Because of this, our national gun rights organizations the NRA and SAF have both filed suits against Illinois. This is good because if you read the Heller and McDonald decisions, not the tripe the Brady Campaign puts out, you will see exactly where the SCOTUS is heading on cases like the ones filed. This will mean that my FOID card will be my carry permit. No bothersome training or background checks, no millions of dollars in permit fees for the state, etc… besides benefiting myself, I am sure, since this is Chicago, that your future opponent will also make issue of your vote making it easy for more guns to be placed on the street.

Thank you,

Mr. ---------

Illnois Citizen,

Chicago resident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sigma Member

Sigma

Posted
Posted

I'm thinking of a letter to strictly the Chicago dem. state reps. Using Bud's ideas. Any opinions. Maybe it's the right time to rattle a few cages?

 

Rep-------

 

As an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, I thank you for your no vote on HB148. Because of this, our national gun rights organizations the NRA and SAF have both filed suits against Illinois. This is good because if you read the Heller and McDonald decisions, not the tripe the Brady Campaign puts out, you will see exactly where the SCOTUS is heading on cases like the ones filed. This will mean that my FOID card will be my carry permit. No bothersome training or background checks, no millions of dollars in permit fees for the state, etc… besides benefiting myself, I am sure, since this is Chicago, that your future opponent will also make issue of your vote making it easy for more guns to be placed on the street.

Thank you,

Mr. ---------

Illnois Citizen,

Chicago resident.

 

just sent it to my rep

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bob1911 Member

Bob1911

Posted
Posted

I'm thinking of a letter to strictly the Chicago dem. state reps. Using Bud's ideas. Any opinions. Maybe it's the right time to rattle a few cages?

 

Rep-------

 

As an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, I thank you for your no vote on HB148. Because of this, our national gun rights organizations the NRA and SAF have both filed suits against Illinois. This is good because if you read the Heller and McDonald decisions, not the tripe the Brady Campaign puts out, you will see exactly where the SCOTUS is heading on cases like the ones filed. This will mean that my FOID card will be my carry permit. No bothersome training or background checks, no millions of dollars in permit fees for the state, etc… besides benefiting myself, I am sure, since this is Chicago, that your future opponent will also make issue of your vote making it easy for more guns to be placed on the street.

Thank you,

Mr. ---------

Illnois Citizen,

Chicago resident.

I am going to borrow this if I may to send to my Rep. Al Riley.

 

 

To the thread:

 

What Little I have witnessed over the last couple of years I see the NRA as a lobby focused organization that has recently entered the litigation arena. I give great applause to Molly and Todd for all the work they have done except the "Mushroom" treatment, for whatever reason. I do not approve of the NRA sabotage or attempt to grab credit where it is IMHO not warranted.

 

What I have witnessed of SAF is stated in the above post by SAF that they are very focused (laser like) on strategic as well as tactical litigation. They are moving forward and do not seem to be moving toward self preservation but instead toward preserving and reestablishing our civil rights most notably regarding our second amendment rights.

 

I would like to see both organizations working together for the benefit of ALL with the focus on what each can bring to the table. (like a potluck dinner!)

 

"United we stand, divided we fall" applies here.

 

(Rant Off)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bob Member

bob

Posted
Posted

Excuse me if i dont't jump up and down.

 

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

 

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

 

Accoding to the SAF website:

The Second Amendment Foundation, founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb, is a tax-exempt Washington-state non-profit corporation organized under §501 © (3) of the IRS code. It has been a pioneer in innovative defense of the right to keep and bear arms, through its publications, public education programs and legal action. To fulfill its purpose, the Foundation maintains a headquarters office in Bellevue, WA, and a publishing office in Buffalo, NY.

According to the IRS:

 

To be tax-exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

 

It does not seem fair to me to chastise them for refraining from doing something that would be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silver Guardian Member

Silver Guardian

Posted
Posted

Accoding to the SAF website:

The Second Amendment Foundation, founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb, is a tax-exempt Washington-state non-profit corporation organized under §501 © (3) of the IRS code. It has been a pioneer in innovative defense of the right to keep and bear arms, through its publications, public education programs and legal action. To fulfill its purpose, the Foundation maintains a headquarters office in Bellevue, WA, and a publishing office in Buffalo, NY.

According to the IRS:

 

To be tax-exempt under section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

 

 

 

Does this mean donations would be tax deductible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CraigC Member

CraigC

Posted
Posted

Excuse me if i dont't jump up and down.

 

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are, but their only answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

 

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

 

While I applaud the work that you and Molly have done so far and today's NRA lawsuit announcement, I have to say that I don't get the attack on SAF or the implication that they only filed today to raise funds.

 

I'll give money to both legal funds and frankly wouldn't care if money was either organization's motivation so long as the end result is success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howie Member

howie

Posted
Posted

Full disclosure.....I'm an NRA life member, ISRA annual member, never had any dealings with SAF. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all who have played a part in getting us like-minded individuals to this point.

 

I think I understand some of the posters who might be a little miffed at SAF for jumping in at the last minute, and after having read the IRS def posted above I understand why SAF didn't get in on the whole 148 issue. I'm a little apprehensive regarding litigation...it's impossible to predict court decisions, and as someone posted earlier, I'd hate to get stuck with a really bad ruling that would set precedence.

 

I can only assume the NRA, ISRA, SAF, IC all want the same thing. I think it would be wise for the various litigants and organizations backing each to get together and compare notes. Surely, all parties would learn something from the others, and I don't see how that could possibly be a bad thing.

 

What I won't have much patience for is when a particular group, upon reaching a successful conclusion, starts puffing their chest out, saying "Look what we did! Praise us!"

 

I think it may have been Reagan who said it's easy to get things done when nobody worries about who is going to get the credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstrat Member

mstrat

Posted
Posted

Abolt,

 

I often hear/read people argue one side of this or the other. Unfortunately, the pro-rights folks often forget to show both of these quotes together to put them into context. And too seldom highlight "such as" and "lawful purposes."

 

If you don't mind, i'm going to do a little editing and turn this into an online flier for people to post whenever they come across the idiotic "in the home" argument. I have a ReasonableGunControl.com domain sitting around collecting dust, so maybe this will be a good excuse to use it. :thumbsup:

 

Au Contraire mon ami'. You've been listening to the opposition too long. Heller states, Section 1, "Operative Clause" paragraph c., page 19 in my copy:

 

snip

 

It gives the INDIVIDUAL right to Possess and Carry in case of confrontation. The antis pick out this section: Syllabus, Section 1.:

 

snip

 

They conveniently forget to read the words, "such as" and "lawful purposes".

 

McDonald simply applied the Second to the States. Heller most definitely says that we, as individuals, have the inalienable right, confirmed by the Constitution to possess and carry a weapon in case of confrontation. NOT limited to the home. It does leave the door open to "some" restrictions as to "sensitive places" etc, but says that total bans are unconstitutional. One mistake that was made in the Heller case was making the plea specific to the home. But sometimes that's done intentionally to gain the court's favor, and then addressed further in another case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nanook Member

Nanook

Posted
Posted

I like the idea of a FOID card being a ccw permit.Since I have a FOID card ,a PA permit a HAzmat endorsement from TSA and waiting on my UTAH permit, I'm kinda feel permitted out.I mean what more do we need to prove to the state ?

 

I hear you, I have an FOID card, and have since the '70s, a Pa permit, and a TWIC card from the Feds. How many times must I be vetted? I've also had unrestricted access in nuke plants all across the country, and oil refineries. You can trust me more than most IL politicians. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howie Member

howie

Posted
Posted

I like the idea of a FOID card being a ccw permit.Since I have a FOID card ,a PA permit a HAzmat endorsement from TSA and waiting on my UTAH permit, I'm kinda feel permitted out.I mean what more do we need to prove to the state ?

 

I hear you, I have an FOID card, and have since the '70s, a Pa permit, and a TWIC card from the Feds. How many times must I be vetted? I've also had unrestricted access in nuke plants all across the country, and oil refineries. You can trust me more than most IL politicians. LOL

That's a pretty low standard :thumbsup: I've ran into a few convicts over the years who could give politicians a run for their money when it comes to trustworthiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpie Member

Sharpie

Posted
Posted

That's what I'm hoping.

 

Side note I wrote the ISRA. I love how fast they respond. I wish they had a payment plan for lifetime membership like the NRA had. I'd do that. This was the response I received:

 

I am confident that they will take the proper path, and I look forward to an alert soon.

 

I like that we are hitting them on all fronts, I just want the lobby as a whole to be united in its approach. Keep offering the legislative outlet, put legal pressure on them, and keep the letters coming.

 

They do have a payment plan. I went through it when I bought my lifetime membership.It might not work if you use the online form. I think you have to mail it in.

 

http://www.isra.org/join/isra_application_2009_web.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
junglebob Member

junglebob

Posted
Posted

I like the idea of a FOID card being a ccw permit.Since I have a FOID card ,a PA permit a HAzmat endorsement from TSA and waiting on my UTAH permit, I'm kinda feel permitted out.I mean what more do we need to prove to the state ?

 

I hear you, I have an FOID card, and have since the '70s, a Pa permit, and a TWIC card from the Feds. How many times must I be vetted? I've also had unrestricted access in nuke plants all across the country, and oil refineries. You can trust me more than most IL politicians. LOL

That's a pretty low standard :thumbsup: I've ran into a few convicts over the years who could give politicians a run for their money when it comes to trustworthiness.

Of course in Illinois some politicians are convicts or soon to be.

 

Nice to see my contributions to SAF being put to use this year, just like mine to the NRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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