Jump to content


Photo

People vs Aguilar


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#61 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:05 AM

The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4


Just playing devil's advocate here but.........

Accordingly, as the Seventh Circuit did in Moore, we here hold that, on its face, section 24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(A) violates the right to keep and bear arms,
as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution.


If those sections, UUW and AUUW are unconstitutional and FCCA only provides an exception to them for those who possess a permit issued under the exception, how can you be charged?

They can't charge you for violating an unconstitutional law, or the individual officer is libel for damages, therefore we should now have open carry, correct?

This basically is the same thing as if the judges had, instead of ruling in the states favor, issued the injunction ordered by the 7th on the day the FCCA passed.

IANAL but just using common sense, there is NO difference to me whether the IL Supreme Court issued the ruling or the 7th. If the law is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

Edited by cshipley92, 12 September 2013 - 10:10 AM.

Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#62 NakPPI

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,609 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:10 AM

There are a ton of reasons why you can't carry today. All that matters is that the statute challenged in Aguilar no longer exists.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4


Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#63 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:13 AM

There are a ton of reasons why you can't carry today. All that matters is that the statute challenged in Aguilar no longer exists.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4


My point exactly. And since the FCCA didn't CHANGE that statute, but provided an exception to it, how can we be charged under the UUW statute?

ie, If I were to carry today (not saying I will but...) what law would I be violating? UUW no longer exists so they couldn't charge me with that.

So, what law would they charge me with breaking?????
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#64 RANDY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 07

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:17 AM

I think the logic some people are trying to make, but I am not sure it is true is. Since the UAAW has been found unconstitutional, which means it was unconstitutional at the time of passing, how can you have an exception to a law that never constitutional to start with.

Edited by RANDY, 12 September 2013 - 10:19 AM.

One persons paranoia is another persons situational awareness.

Fastest way to end violence is to ban Democrats. 


#65 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:19 AM

I think the logic some people are trying to make, but I am not sure it is true is. Since the UAAW has been found unconstitutional, which means it never existed, how can you have an exception to a law that never existed.


Exactly. or as I said above....

What law can they charge a person for carrying under?
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#66 cls74

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:54 AM

Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun.

#67 jagt48

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:54 AM

Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun.


This is my thought. It is still the law until it is challenged in court.

#68 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:00 AM

Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun.


a loaded and partially or fully concealed firearm...yes.

but what about open carry? What would they charge you with there?
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#69 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:04 AM

Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun.

Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists?
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#70 cls74

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:05 AM

A bit off topic, but ever wonder if the anonymous users are friend or foe? Always seem to be on the big topics. I've always disliked that feature on forums

#71 cls74

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:07 AM

Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun.

Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists?

Yeah, I'm unsure there. Hopefully the SA he mentioned in the other thread returns his call. Will be an interesting response. Don't think Morgan county ever joined the will not prosecute counties.

#72 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:11 AM

Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun.

Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists?

Yeah, I'm unsure there. Hopefully the SA he mentioned in the other thread returns his call. Will be an interesting response. Don't think Morgan county ever joined the will not prosecute counties.


Not officially, but he did say that he would handle each instance on a case by case basis.
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#73 Fuddster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:19 AM

I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.

 
Oh boy, wabbit twacks!

#74 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:30 AM

I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.

Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#75 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:34 AM

I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.

Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters.

Ha Ha my comment here just reminded me that mine had expired and I probably looked like a hypocrite........ just re-upped
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#76 cshipley92

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:35 AM

I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.

Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters.

Ha Ha my comment here just reminded me that mine had expired and I probably looked like a hypocrite........ just re-upped

:laugh:
Frederick Douglas "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box."

#77 Fuddster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:54 AM

And now I'm 2 posts closer to my first star! :drool:

 
Oh boy, wabbit twacks!

#78 Onytay

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,155 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 07

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:00 PM

And now I'm 2 posts closer to my first star! :drool:


No star just a measly little dot, stars don come until 1000 post.

#79 Danielm60660

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:27 PM

Wait, so it is now my constitutional right to ccw outside my home. Is it also my right to carry said weapon on the cta or in a city park?

Those folks who said the NRA/ISRA sold us out probably won't understand the true meaning of the question, but perhaps there is a logic to the steps taken after all. I am as pro 2A as anyone this board, but I can also see the reality of our situation. It gives me a certain clarity as to the current chain of events.


#80 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:33 PM

interesting.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#81 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:35 PM

Wait, so it is now my constitutional right to ccw outside my home. Is it also my right to carry said weapon on the cta or in a city park?

Those folks who said the NRA/ISRA sold us out probably won't understand the true meaning of the question, but perhaps there is a logic to the steps taken after all. I am as pro 2A as anyone this board, but I can also see the reality of our situation. It gives me a certain clarity as to the current chain of events.

Not CCW...............Bear......big difference
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#82 Danielm60660

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:40 PM

I am going out on a limb to post this. I will absolutely not give out a name, but about two months ago, I was told by a CPD officer first hand that they are not currently enforcing UUW unless it is a non FOID, known gang member or involving another crime or an assault weapon. These questions you all are asking are exactly why. Even the state's attorneys don't exactly know the answers.

#83 speedbump

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:52 PM

Be very cautious, the footnote to Paragraph 22 states, in part, "...neither the Firearms Concealed Carry Act nor the amended AUUW statute is at issue in this case." Paragraph 21 is powerful though. :geek:
"J.J., you are an anomaly !" ~Mike Rowe~ aka: Mr. Molly

#84 Danielm60660

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:55 PM

Wait, so it is now my constitutional right to ccw outside my home. Is it also my right to carry said weapon on the cta or in a city park?

Those folks who said the NRA/ISRA sold us out probably won't understand the true meaning of the question, but perhaps there is a logic to the steps taken after all. I am as pro 2A as anyone this board, but I can also see the reality of our situation. It gives me a certain clarity as to the current chain of events.

Not CCW...............Bear......big difference


I agree, but if you reword it as BEAR ARMS outside the home, the question remains. I think I see the next chink in the armor. That is all.

#85 Wi300

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:56 PM

John Bosce posted this earlier today. http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=9194

What he is thinking by posting this is beyond me. Put it this way, I wouldn't.
Once upon a time, people kept guns in glass front cases and lowlifes were the ones kept locked up.

#86 Danielm60660

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:59 PM

Of course this won't happen, but if the FCCA is only an exception to an unconstitutional laws, perhaps it should be scrapped all together. Maybe we need to start all over with a whole new law. Now, with this ruling in place, what do you think that might look like? like I said, I doubt it'll happen. But it sure is interesting.


#87 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,538 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:30 PM

Does anyone else remember Paul "the constitutional scholar" Castiglione's statement that since the IL SC has not ruled that carry outside the home falls under the scope of the 2A so Crook County doesn't have to follow Moore? Well, now he's got his ruling. And now the state has to follow precedents set in Moore and Aguilar. Have a nice day, Paul :)

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#88 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,898 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:34 PM

Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.

I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#89 RockerXX

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,110 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:38 PM

Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.

I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please.


I second that request....

What weighs six ounces, sits in a tree and is very dangerous?
A sparrow with a machine gun!


#90 s0beit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:43 PM

Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.

I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please.


I believe he's talking about this?

"The following is the full text of an announcement that was sent by the Criminal Division to the United States Attorneys' Offices upon the passage of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment) in the fall of 1996. This provision amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 by banning the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

Limitations on Previous Convictions -- 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)( :cool:. To qualify:(1) at the time of previous conviction, the defendant must have been represented by counsel, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel;(2) if the offense of previous conviction entitled the person to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either the case was tried by a jury, or the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise; and (3) the conviction can not have been expunged or set aside, or be an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. The issue of restoration of civil rights must be carefully researched for each potential defendant. For example, in some states a person automatically loses his/her civil rights upon the execution of a sentence of imprisonment (felony or misdemeanor) only to have the rights restored upon the defendant's release from prison or sentence. However, in those states, a person who does not serve a sentence of imprisonment may not lose their civil rights and, therefor, this limitation may not be applicable. But, in United States v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627 (1st Cir. 1996), the Court held that in at least some instances if one group of felons may possess a firearm because their rights were automatically taken away and then restored then those who do not have their rights taken away may also possess a firearm. The Terrorism and Violent Crime Section can provide assistance in analyzing particular cases.


http://www.justice.g...e9/crm01117.htm

Not sure if this is it.

EDIT: Also this http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/921

(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(<img src='http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Edited by s0beit, 12 September 2013 - 01:53 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users