144 replies to this topic

[mstrat]

Buzzard, on 15 January 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

Illinois may be running out of time and Quinn will have to make a choice. Does he want some say in what Illinois has in a carry law or let the highest court in the land decide for him. Since the Heller and McDonald decisions, Quinn will now be playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court. Who do you think will flinch first?

I think he'll run head-first right into the wreckage.

I understand your point, but these Chicago political thugs have shown time and again that they feel they're above the law. When the entire country knew McDonald was going to win, Daley (for example) continued to adamantly defend his unconstitutional laws.

And look at this tax increase.  The entire country is laughing at us; economists and analysts are blasting it as the dumbest  thing they could have done (worse than doing nothing) - yet Quinn is patting himself and Madigan on the back saying he's proud.

You and I, and the rest of the planet live in a different dimension from Quinn and his cronies.

[ishmo]

drdoom, on 15 January 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

The Bill needs a provision that allows cities (like Chicago) to opt out. Is it perfect? No, but it's a step
in the door that we desperately need if we want success. It needs an opt out provision and also protections
for CCW holders that do 'accidentally' carry into a restricted town (in which instance, they pay a small fine
for a violation). I'm not a fan of having a bunch of un-uniformed CCW laws across the board state-wide,
but for the time-being, we need to focus on getting a step in the door, end of story.

No offense friend but the Heller decision opened the door a crack and Otis McDonald kicked it open. All that needs to be done here is for the rest of us to walk thru it and I think that's what we're preparing to do this year.

You do realize that if you allow local jurisdictions to opt out of one one fundamental right they'll likely try to opt out of or restrict others like maybe the 1st, 4th, and 5th. I for one don't think my rights should be restricted by any two-bit politicians with an overinflated sense of their own self importance.

Things are at a point in Illinois there is no compromise, we've tried that in the past. Illinois either follows the law for all citizens or suffers the consequences in the courts or elsewhere.

[mstrat]

ishmo, on 15 January 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

drdoom, on 15 January 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

The Bill needs a provision that allows cities (like Chicago) to opt out. Is it perfect? No, but it's a step
in the door that we desperately need if we want success. It needs an opt out provision and also protections
for CCW holders that do 'accidentally' carry into a restricted town (in which instance, they pay a small fine
for a violation). I'm not a fan of having a bunch of un-uniformed CCW laws across the board state-wide,
but for the time-being, we need to focus on getting a step in the door, end of story.

No offense friend but the Heller decision opened the door a crack and Otis McDonald kicked it open. All that needs to be done here is for the rest of us to walk thru it and I think that's what we're preparing to do this year.

You do realize that if you allow local jurisdictions to opt out of one one fundamental right they'll likely try to opt out of or restrict others like maybe the 1st, 4th, and 5th. I for one don't think my rights should be restricted by any two-bit politicians with an overinflated sense of their own self importance.

Things are at a point in Illinois there is no compromise, we've tried that in the past. Illinois either follows the law for all citizens or suffers the consequences in the courts or elsewhere.

I can't speak for drdoom, but for me the (PURELY) hypothetical prospect of supporting a RTC bill without preemption is only tolerated with the knowledge that it would be eventually ruled unconstitutional by the courts. It would be a matter of "RTC for most of IL now, with the rest to follow in ~10 years" vs. "RTC for all of IL in ~10 years."

But again, purely hypothetical for me since I don't believe a non-preemption bill would ever go into law. So if we're going to lose, let's lose with our principles in tact.

[ishmo]

mstrat, on 15 January 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

ishmo, on 15 January 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

drdoom, on 15 January 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

The Bill needs a provision that allows cities (like Chicago) to opt out. Is it perfect? No, but it's a step
in the door that we desperately need if we want success. It needs an opt out provision and also protections
for CCW holders that do 'accidentally' carry into a restricted town (in which instance, they pay a small fine
for a violation). I'm not a fan of having a bunch of un-uniformed CCW laws across the board state-wide,
but for the time-being, we need to focus on getting a step in the door, end of story.

No offense friend but the Heller decision opened the door a crack and Otis McDonald kicked it open. All that needs to be done here is for the rest of us to walk thru it and I think that's what we're preparing to do this year.

You do realize that if you allow local jurisdictions to opt out of one one fundamental right they'll likely try to opt out of or restrict others like maybe the 1st, 4th, and 5th. I for one don't think my rights should be restricted by any two-bit politicians with an overinflated sense of their own self importance.

Things are at a point in Illinois there is no compromise, we've tried that in the past. Illinois either follows the law for all citizens or suffers the consequences in the courts or elsewhere.

I can't speak for drdoom, but for me the (PURELY) hypothetical prospect of supporting a RTC bill without preemption is only tolerated with the knowledge that it would be eventually ruled unconstitutional by the courts. It would be a matter of "RTC for most of IL now, with the rest to follow in ~10 years" vs. "RTC for all of IL in ~10 years."

But again, purely hypothetical for me since I don't believe a non-preemption bill would ever go into law. So if we're going to lose, let's lose with our principles in tact.

Think positive mstrat, things aren't quite as bad for us as you could infer from reading some of the posts on the board.

[mstrat]

ishmo, on 15 January 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Think positive mstrat, things aren't quite as bad for us as you could infer from reading some of the posts on the board.

Yea, I certainly don't mean to be all doom-and-gloom. Things are looking a bit better in the ILGA, and great in the courts.  What worries me is Quinn.  I don't think we have the votes to overturn a veto.

That's what it all comes down to, so I have little hope for any meaningful legislative change in the coming years.

But I am certainly expecting, and looking forward to seeing some new judicial wins.

[mauserme]

In the period between the Heller and McDonald decisions I also argued to consider letting Chicago opt out as one option for progress.  It made sense to me at that time to get as much as we could under Heller, then build on it under McDonald, while giving Chicago an opportunity to stay in their comfort zone for a while as the rest of the state demonstrated how well Right to Carry works.

Well, McDonald is settled and the people against Right to Carry have lost the opportunity they once had.

Just my $0.02, and it very well may take some Section 1983 (civil rights) litigation as well.   And, IIRC, Section 1983 suits below state level go against the person, not the office (someone will correct me if my memory is off).

[vezpa]

Even if by some Godly miracle CCC passed in Illinois Chicago will make it next to impossible to get, probably by making strict costly classes mandatory, offering one 20 person class every year and they will prohibit carrying them almost everywhere.  Public transportation will be a first no gun area, followed by every park, street etc... Anyone who had ever committed a misdemeanor offense or a traffic ticket will be banned by law from applying for a permit.

Watch and remember I said it here first.  CCC will be no good when they ban carrying them in almost every city area.

They need to figure out where they will be allowed and include it in the bill.  You know Chicago will surely look for every loophole they can use.  It's what scum does.

[05FLHT]

vezpa, on 16 January 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

They need to figure out where they will be allowed and include it in the bill.  You know Chicago will surely look for every loophole they can use.  It's what scum does.

'Sensitive places' will be defined by the courts, not Chicago. Streets, parks, and public transportation would never pass scrutiny.

[vezpa]

05FLHT, on 16 January 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

vezpa, on 16 January 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

They need to figure out where they will be allowed and include it in the bill.  You know Chicago will surely look for every loophole they can use.  It's what scum does.

'Sensitive places' will be defined by the courts, not Chicago. Streets, parks, and public transportation would never pass scrutiny.

You keep believing that.  This is Illinois where loopholes are found in law before it passes.  We saw this in June in Chicago.

[ChicagoSigFan]

I'd like to see the concealed carry bill authorize permits from state-level department rather than local sheriffs.  Perhaps some feel that any CC is a good thing, but to me, a system that grants any amount of discretion in local Sheriffs will be ripe for abuse.  Look at New York or California, where citizens have different rights depending on the county in which they reside and the 2A stance of the local sheriff. A resident of some counties can get permits that are valid state-wide, even in the counties that are Anti-CCW, yet if you live in one of those counties where the Sheriif is anti-CCW, you can't get a permit at all.  

I much prefer a system like Florida, where permits are granted by the State's Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  Even in a "May Issue" situation, it is still preferable to have clearly enumerated requirements and a single point of discretion at the state level.  As a resident of Chicago, local discretion would concern me.  Can anyone imagine Cook County NOT abusing any discretion they are given in this matter?

[lockman]

mstrat, on 15 January 2011 - 10:09 PM, said:

ishmo, on 15 January 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Think positive mstrat, things aren't quite as bad for us as you could infer from reading some of the posts on the board.

Yea, I certainly don't mean to be all doom-and-gloom. Things are looking a bit better in the ILGA, and great in the courts. What worries me is Quinn. I don't think we have the votes to overturn a veto.

That's what it all comes down to, so I have little hope for any meaningful legislative change in the coming years.

But I am certainly expecting, and looking forward to seeing some new judicial wins.

If the matter could get to the floor for a vote, I was always under the impression we were within a couple of votes inclusive of the majority to override home rule?

[mstrat]

lockman, on 16 January 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

If the matter could get to the floor for a vote, I was always under the impression we were within a couple of votes inclusive of the majority to override home rule?

I also believe that to be the case. What worries me is that it is not uncommon for a vetoed bill to die despite originally having the needed votes to overturn the veto.  During that inbetween time, back room dealings cause some votes to mysteriously change, or become absent.

Maybe I'm being overly-cynical, and I hope I have to eat my words.

[Lou]

mstrat, on 15 January 2011 - 10:09 PM, said:

ishmo, on 15 January 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Think positive mstrat, things aren't quite as bad for us as you could infer from reading some of the posts on the board.

Yea, I certainly don't mean to be all doom-and-gloom. Things are looking a bit better in the ILGA, and great in the courts.  What worries me is Quinn.  I don't think we have the votes to overturn a veto.

That's what it all comes down to, so I have little hope for any meaningful legislative change in the coming years.

But I am certainly expecting, and looking forward to seeing some new judicial wins.

Madigan would declare that ANY RTC bill would need a supermajority because of home rule concerns.  If it got to Quinn it would already have enought votes to override a Quinn veto.

[Tvandermyde]

the system we are talking about would have the Sheriffs be the point of entry, with the state police being the issuing authority for a statewide permit.

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial. if the individual wins an appeal, the Sheriff is on the hook for costs.

[USArmyRet]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

the system we are talking about would have the Sheriffs be the point of entry, with the state police being the issuing authority for a statewide permit.

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial. if the individual wins an appeal, the Sheriff is on the hook for costs.

I'd go along with that, the sheriffs know or should know their county residence and who should have a reason and who not. I'm sure the sheriffs would go along with that also.

[ChicagoSigFan]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

the system we are talking about would have the Sheriffs be the point of entry, with the state police being the issuing authority for a statewide permit.

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial. if the individual wins an appeal, the Sheriff is on the hook for costs.

That seems fair to me.

[mikew]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial.

Is there a reason that wouldn't also be a reason for FOID revocation?

If any existing FOID holder was to meet the age & training requirements, and their money was green,
what would be a reason that could be articulated for RTC denial?

[05FLHT]

vezpa, on 16 January 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:

05FLHT, on 16 January 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

vezpa, on 16 January 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

They need to figure out where they will be allowed and include it in the bill.  You know Chicago will surely look for every loophole they can use.  It's what scum does.

'Sensitive places' will be defined by the courts, not Chicago. Streets, parks, and public transportation would never pass scrutiny.

You keep believing that.  This is Illinois where loopholes are found in law before it passes.  We saw this in June in Chicago.

They also seem to be doing really well putting together arguments to defend their ordinance. The issue of 'sensitive places' is being fleshed out in cases across the country (i.e. Nordyke and Digiacinto). The RKBA is a civil right and not up to the whims of the State. Court houses and Government buildings may pass muster, but it would be quite the stretch to try and include a street, park, or public transportation.

[Lou]

USArmyRet, on 16 January 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

the system we are talking about would have the Sheriffs be the point of entry, with the state police being the issuing authority for a statewide permit.

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial. if the individual wins an appeal, the Sheriff is on the hook for costs.

I'd go along with that, the sheriffs know or should know their county residence and who should have a reason and who not. I'm sure the sheriffs would go along with that also.

The Illinois Sheriff's Assoc. requested this be added to the bill.  They are endorsing RTC legislation which is a BIG plus for us to have a statewide LE organization backing us.

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

the system we are talking about would have the Sheriffs be the point of entry, with the state police being the issuing authority for a statewide permit.

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial. if the individual wins an appeal, the Sheriff is on the hook for costs.

I'm not really sure where you would be going with this. I'm not sure about where you live, but my county sure isn't 'Mayberry.' The only interaction I've had with my Sheriff is talking on the phone and that's because I called him. I would expect that to obtain a 'license' to practice a civil right would simply require that you are not a prohibited person.

For the sake of clarity, what exactly would be an 'articulable reasons' to try and deny a permit? Doesn't look right? Seen with 'bad' people? Not white? What's more simple, fair, or constitutional than can, or can not, possess a firearm?

[Tvandermyde]

articuable reasons would be like they have answered 5 or 6 domestic calls w/ police reports to document the incidents where the spouce/partner refused to press charges.

[USArmyRet]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

articuable reasons would be like they have answered 5 or 6 domestic calls w/ police reports to document the incidents where the spouce/partner refused to press charges.

AAAAAH!!! Proof that it's great to be single and stay single. Domestic disputes stay within the house whose window I just jumped out of.

[drdoom]

So we'll need 71 votes to pass it, since it pre-empts home-rule, are there any ways around that which don't involve allowing cities, towns banning CCW? (opting out). I don't think we'll get CCW from a court-case. Chicago's ban of carrying a gun on your front-lawn and garage will probably get struck down because it's private property, but I don't see how you could make a case at the state-level to repeal both wildlife and criminal code sections banning carriage of guns. Any thoughts how a court case might strike state law down? you could argue the FOID is a defacto regulatory system for carrying guns, but then again, what use is an unloaded and encased weapon?

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 06:21 PM, said:

articuable reasons would be like they have answered 5 or 6 domestic calls w/ police reports to document the incidents where the spouce/partner refused to press charges.

That example is quite the slippery slope. A domestic violence conviction already precludes an individual from legally possessing a firearm. There could be a myriad of reason for 2, 3, or even five calls to a residence, the last being one person committing violence against another. The standard should be narrowly tailored at 'legally able to possess.'

[05FLHT]

drdoom, on 16 January 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

So we'll need 71 votes to pass it, since it pre-empts home-rule, are there any ways around that which don't involve allowing cities, towns banning CCW? (opting out). I don't think we'll get CCW from a court-case. Chicago's ban of carrying a gun on your front-lawn and garage will probably get struck down because it's private property, but I don't see how you could make a case at the state-level to repeal both wildlife and criminal code sections banning carriage of guns. Any thoughts how a court case might strike state law down? you could argue the FOID is a defacto regulatory system for carrying guns, but then again, what use is an unloaded and encased weapon?

The right is to "keep and bear," or to say it another way "have and carry." The SCOTUS exhausted the search for a definition in Heller, finding that to "bear" arms means carry on ones person or in a pocket. The 2nd Amendment, being no different than the 1st, does not end at your front door or where a public street begins. The State may be able to regulate the time/place/manner of bearing arms, but not prohibit it entirely. My best guess is the courts flesh the matter out in 2-3 years.

[Tvandermyde]

05 -- I'm well aware of what the Court articulated in Heller. If you want to propose that bill and hold it out there and wait for it's passage go for it. The Cubs will win the World Series, Hell will freeze over, and pigs will fly.

get over wanting a perfect consitutional bill/law. We will have to make some consessions to get a law on the books. None of the other states started off perfect. We are trying to undie 60 plus years of culture in this state. So if this is the type of bill, which it is, that started Kentucky, Tennessse and others down the path I'll take it.

Your free not to apply if you don't like it.

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

05 -- I'm well aware of what the Court articulated in Heller. If you want to propose that bill and hold it out there and wait for it's passage go for it. The Cubs will win the World Series, Hell will freeze over, and pigs will fly.

get over wanting a perfect consitutional bill/law. We will have to make some consessions to get a law on the books. None of the other states started off perfect. We are trying to undie 60 plus years of culture in this state. So if this is the type of bill, which it is, that started Kentucky, Tennessse and others down the path I'll take it.

Your free not to apply if you don't like it.

What I am saying is that a 'discretionary' carry bill is discriminatory (i.e. CA, MA, NJ, MD, ect..). There is no reason to have a discretionary bill. You meet the qualifications or you don't. Other States, sans WI, did not have Heller/McDonald and WI is going for 'constitutional' carry. In the end it does not matter what I say or what the ILGA does, the courts will be taking up the matter. The cases have already been filed and are well on their way to the SCOTUS.

Illinois can pass a carry bill now and have some say, or they can roll the dice. I will freely admit that the longer they hold out, the less I am willing to compromise. How about you?

[05FLHT]

Todd,

I do not want to argue with you...I'm on your side, remember? All I want is a bill that is fair. Will it be perfect the first time around? No, probably not.  But above all else, it should be fair.

[Buzzard]

05FLHT, on 16 January 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

All I want is a bill that is fair. Will it be perfect the first time around? No, probably not.  But above all else, it should be fair.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair", but I think you can be sure it will be a "shall issue" permit bill. This means that unless you're another Jared Loughner and have a list of recent complaints at the local sheriff's dept., you'll get your permit. I find that quite acceptable.

[junglebob]

mikew, on 16 January 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial.

Is there a reason that wouldn't also be a reason for FOID revocation?

If any existing FOID holder was to meet the age & training requirements, and their money was green,
what would be a reason that could be articulated for RTC denial?

Maybe the Illinois Sheriff's Association, who would like this in the bill, is thinking about the time when there is no longer a FOID card requirement in Illinois.