Jump to content

Moore/Shepard Ruling Announced


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Currie wants Lil Lisa to appeal to the SCOTUS

 

http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/news/city/15497-court-ruling-on-illinois-gun-ban-sets-stage-for-fight

 

You know what I think? I think that even if SCOTUS agreed to hear it, it would totally fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - to anyone with a good knowledge of the case - there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia entry on either of the cases. We should get something up there.

 

I don't think anyone has updated the Illinois gun laws article yet either. I haven't been inclined to but I may jump on later today if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the order of the court it says nothing about review by the court of any legislation in 180 days. The order will take affect regardless of anything the legislature passes or fails to pass. If the new law is onerous and oppressive and unconstitutional the whole thing starts again… from scratch…! Never underestimate the Chicago Machine when it gets into full press mode. I like the comment the justices made in Ezzel v. City of Chicago: "...Chicago is thumbing its municipal nose at the Supreme Court."

 

 

Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.

 

Yes. Imagine how the other side would act if given a similar mandate in their favor. They would use their new found leverage to get exactly what they want and more with no shame whatsoever. HB148 should be the other side's opening offer, not ours. I have full confidence in Todd, but I'm a little annoyed about the ISRA's push for HB148.

Edited by Handgunner230
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.

 

Yes. Imagine how the other side would act if given a similar mandate in their favor. They would use their new found leverage to get exactly what they want and more with no shame whatsoever. HB148 should be the other side's opening offer, not ours. I have full confidence in Todd, but I'm a little annoyed about the ISRA's push for HB148.

 

I saw ISRA maximum leader state 'We might not be so generous this time around.'

 

:drool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it should be phrased as the right to carry not just concealed carry.

 

That is EXACTLY right!

Indiana verbiage - "License to Carry a Handgun"

Yep, I agree. Since we have the upper hand for once, I'd like to see both concealed and open carry. Don't know if I'd ever want to open carry, but it would be nice to have that option from the get go, instead of fighting for it at some point in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the order of the court it says nothing about review by the court of any legislation in 180 days. The order will take affect regardless of anything the legislature passes or fails to pass. If the new law is onerous and oppressive and unconstitutional the whole thing starts again… from scratch…! Never underestimate the Chicago Machine when it gets into full press mode. I like the comment the justices made in Ezzel v. City of Chicago: "...Chicago is thumbing its municipal nose at the Supreme Court."

 

 

Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.

 

We were always the reasonable ones, the carrot didn't work, a bigger stick did. However, the court clearly left this in the hands of the legislators, so we still need votes to pass a good bill, the first time, and not have to end up back in litigation. Don't get me wrong, there was fair warning and now one heck of a big 'I told you so' is due, but we must reman reasonable and level headed moving forward.

Edited by 05FLHT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to "en banc", I'm hoping that the appeals court wouldn't allow it. From rotlaw.com (a random law firm I found while Googling) it sounds like they would have a hard time justifying it (emphasis mine):

 

Not all requests for a rehearing en banc are granted. Often, an appeals court will not take the time to rehear a case en banc unless the case includes a question of major importance (like how to interpret a new law), or the panel’s opinion appears to contradict state or federal law or precedent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was shocked, frankly, when I saw this. I figured it would 2-1 the other way and would require another trip to the Supreme Court. But, since an en banc or a trip to the SC is very unlikely (since the anti-gun leaders of our country DO NOT want to lose there as that would open up a can of worms for a lot of other places), I say the most onerous restrictions we should accept are the following:

  • Prohibited in Government Buildings including Schools (kinda a gimme given the current political climate, not that I agree with it)
  • Training requirement (of no more than 8 hours), with a Hunter Safety course from any state, an NRA pistol safety course, or a Concealed Carry training course or Carry license from any other state having been possessed at least 1 year satisfying said training requirement.
  • a $10.00 processing fee for a stamp to be added to your FOID card, or perhaps a reissued FOCID (Firearm Owner and Carry IDentification) of some type (not that I agree with the FOID issuance, either).
  • All other states carry permits/licenses (however they are termed) are valid as long as they also meet the training/possession requirement.

Beyond that, I would say that's it. So you can carry open or concealed, your choice, and can be rifles, pistols, and/or shotguns wherever you want except with few restrictions.

 

Of course, I say the strategy should be to gather a block of enough legislators so that no legislation put forward regarding carrying can be passed, and on June 10th we get constitutional carry, where I can carry what I want, how I want, where I want as long as you have a FOID. Then we get rid of the FOID and the the rules prohibiting SBSs, SBRs, DD, and Full Auto. :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:09 AM

 

 

 

Some one put in a placeholder back in August????

 

Yeah! We were expecting a ruling at any time! :P

 

Oh yeah... I love it... Hope I can link to it from my blog...

 

[EDIT] My comment refers to the countdown time clock...

 

Regards, Drd...

Edited by dmefford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I say the strategy should be to gather a block of enough legislators so that no legislation put forward regarding carrying can be passed, and on June 10th we get constitutional carry, where I can carry what I want, how I want, where I want as long as you have a FOID. Then we get rid of the FOID and the the rules prohibiting SBSs, SBRs, DD, and Full Auto. :devil:

But if that happened and we ended up with constitutional carry, wouldn't Chicago, Crook County and any other municipality be free to create their own highly restrictive gun laws if they wanted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, I say the strategy should be to gather a block of enough legislators so that no legislation put forward regarding carrying can be passed, and on June 10th we get constitutional carry, where I can carry what I want, how I want, where I want as long as you have a FOID. Then we get rid of the FOID and the the rules prohibiting SBSs, SBRs, DD, and Full Auto. :devil:

But if that happened and we ended up with constitutional carry, wouldn't Chicago, Crook County and any other municipality be free to create their own highly restrictive gun laws if they wanted?

 

No different than under any other Carry laws that could be passed. Just because a law is unconstitutional/illegal does not mean it won't be passed and then enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the video footage from the KHQA interview after editing... It was on the 6 o'clock news...

 

http://www.connecttr...62#.UMlB13cyGSp

 

[Edited to add] I should say that I arranged for the reporter to visit with Sheriff Petty. Just so happened our resident game warden was present as well and they took her out shooting...

 

Regards, Drd...

Edited by dmefford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that we get a RTC law within the 180 days, the state will have the ball in their court then and could do a slow walk to the implementation stage It could conceiveably take years and more court battles just to get a law implemented. I am sure that Todd and the movers and shakers are well aware of the pitfalls moving forward but if out-of-state non-resident permits were grandfathered in and made valid from day 1 for Illinois residents who have them as well as out-of-state permits for residents from other states the motive for slow walking implementation would be negated.

I think that whatever we don't get in the first bill will be a long time coming if we decide to not go for the most sweeping RTC law ever enacted short of Constitutional Carry.

 

I would be interested to hear anyone explain what the downside of simply letting the time expire would be. Seriously! I am sure that there is a downside, but is it worse than insisting of the best RTC law ever passed.

 

Missouri has a good law, but we can do a lot better now that we have the momentum. They should have taken our offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our total focus and object should be getting a fair carry bill passed as quickly as possible

 

Dragging things out in an attempt to get really hard to swallow ideas by the chicago machine approved is counter-productive.

 

I am a 'purist" at heart. What i mean by that is I fervently believe there are people in this State who desperately need to be armed for their own safety, i.e. seniors, battered women, folks who are forced to work in or commute through bad areas, etc.

 

I really believe, very strongly, that concealed carry is desperately needed now because the life that may get saved just might be a member of my family or one of my friends.

 

If the other side threw up their hands and said they would accept HB 148 (with modifications of the training, most of the geographical restrictions and curtting the ISP out of the proicess totally) I would accept it. In other words, HB 5745 is just about immediately acceptable to me.

 

I "edited" this to add: I actually like HB 5745 much better than 148. If the geographical restrictions were reduced to a minimum I would accept it totslly. The training requirements are much easier and many folks here already qualify.

Edited by Bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question is, if a RTC bill is not approved and it defaults to constitutional carry, there would be no law on the books to prevent any type of home rule. What would stop Chicago & Cook County from passing some type of draconian may issue laws?

 

They will not be able to completely ban all forms of public carry... You can bet that will not stop King Rahm...!

 

Regards, Drd...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked 5745 better too.

 

For one thing it didn't call for having a gun in a vehicle hidden from public sight - which to me, if you don't have that in there, it's an open invitation to anti-gun police to charge you with violating the law because they'll claim they were able to see your firearm in your car. The only way to stop that would be to have it locked up in a console or compartment - and then you're really not that far from what we have right now.

 

5745 says:

Provides that a license to carry a handgun entitles a licensee to carry a loaded handgun, either concealed or openly, on or about his or her person or in a vehicle

148 says:

carried in a vehicle in such a way as it is concealed from view of the public
Edited by C0untZer0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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