Jump to content

50% reduction in IL FFLs?


InterestedBystander

Recommended Posts

FFLs aren't a protected class of citizens and challenging it as an occupational license is a sure loser because all that is needed is rational basis. Have seen occupational license statutes requiring 1600 hours of training to "thread hair" upheld. Completely asinine garbage upheld simply because "well if the legislature thinks it's necessary then alrighty." Economic liberty is something courts have tossed to the wayside. The right to make a living, be successful, not have the government put up so many barriers to entry (occupational licensing) that it's impossible to even enter that market or stay in it. The only action here would be a straight up 2A action. Maybe some Supremacy Clause count but I doubt that'll fly. Plead that the licensing regime is designed to drive down FFLs as there IS a right to engage in firearms commerce. They can't price people out of the job market with "reasonable regulations." Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

I didn't mean that they were "protected" in any way, but rather that if the deliberate intent by the people who wrote the law was to drive them out of business and relinquish their FFLs, then wouldn't that be a prejudicial intent towards the people who own FFLs and selective targeting of laws to suppress a lawful commercial activity that is regulated by the Federal government? That would very much be deliberate intent to price these individuals out of the market, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......then wouldn't that be a prejudicial intent towards the people who own FFLs and selective targeting of laws to suppress a lawful commercial activity that is regulated by the Federal government? That would very much be deliberate intent to price these individuals out of the market, wouldn't it?

 

 

As Skinny said, the courts likely won't accept the commerce or business argument, the angle taken has to be that it's a civil rights violation that infringes upon them exercising their 2nd rights.

 

Instead it has to be approached the same way the pro-abortion people are approaching laws that target and shut down abortion clinics, the same way Chicago's gun store and then gun range ban was overturned, but with a more strict ruling that slaps Illinois upside the head, that being if the laws burden that right to the point that people can't reasonably exercise it without undo burdens that don't pass rights level scrutiny it's a violation of the right iteself and unconstitutional.

 

It's a civil rights issue and it has to be fought as one from the civil rights angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that they were "protected" in any way, but rather that if the deliberate intent by the people who wrote the law was to drive them out of business and relinquish their FFLs, then wouldn't that be a prejudicial intent towards the people who own FFLs and selective targeting of laws to suppress a lawful commercial activity that is regulated by the Federal government? That would very much be deliberate intent to price these individuals out of the market, wouldn't it?

 

Harmon could stand up tomorrow and say "The reason for this is to keep Illinois residents disarmed" or "I hate FFLs and want to put as many out of business as possible. I'd close them all if I could." and that isn't actionable. It shouldn't be. He's immune from his remarks as he is a legislator and it's essentially "hearsay." Just like Trump should've been.

 

That's the straight 2A/14A action I'm referring to...and Flynn did. It (substantially, IMO) infringes on their right to engage in firearms commerce. Logically, if there's a right to own a gun, then there's a right to engage in commerce or no one would be able to buy or sell a gun. Or could go the buyer route, where a plaintiff who lives in bufu nowhere, every FFL but Walmart has closed down, Walmart won't do transfers, so he's effectively barred from purchasing THE gun that he wants. Not just A gun, but his gun of choice. There's no AWB so we do have the right to purchase a firearm which suits our needs, minus NFA items. Throwing out legal theory here as, to my knowledge at least, none of that has been litigated or even plead in a court of law.

 

The original, three-judge panel (CA9, O'Scannlain majority opinion) in Teixeira v. County of Alameda said the County's regs violated Teixeira's (an FFL) right to engage in firearms commerce. Unfortunately, CA9 did the "let's go en banc because we don't like this ruling" and turned it on its head. But that only concerned Alameda County and the idiotic regs didn't really impede anyone from buying a gun because there's big box stores which, under CA9 logic, means it's constitutional. The ILGA seems to have adopted CA9's reasoning and drafted the statute to evade a finding of unconstitutionality...in the Ninth Circuit. That may not fly in front of CA7. Plain and simple, thr (extremely flawed) reasoning is long as it doesn't STOP a resident of the jurisdiction from buying a gun, it's constitutional. Where do we draw the line? How many hundreds of miles must one drive to buy a firearm? 100, 200, 300....before the licensing regime is declared unconstitutional? I can see several other arguments the state will make in defense of the Act. They're all pretty disingenuous and....if it were anything but the 2A then the law wouldn't fly and would be tossed out like yesterday's trash.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

......then wouldn't that be a prejudicial intent towards the people who own FFLs and selective targeting of laws to suppress a lawful commercial activity that is regulated by the Federal government? That would very much be deliberate intent to price these individuals out of the market, wouldn't it?

 

 

As Skinny said, the courts likely won't accept the commerce or business argument, the angle taken has to be that it's a civil rights violation that infringes upon them exercising their 2nd rights.

 

Instead it has to be approached the same way the pro-abortion people are approaching laws that target and shut down abortion clinics, the same way Chicago's gun store and then gun range ban was overturned, but with a more strict ruling that slaps Illinois upside the head, that being if the laws burden that right to the point that people can't reasonably exercise it without undo burdens that don't pass rights level scrutiny it's a violation of the right iteself and unconstitutional.

 

It's a civil rights issue and it has to be fought as one from the civil rights angles.

 

 

 

I actually wrote in the "FFLs moving/closing" thread the following:

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=72264&page=2&do=findComment&comment=1218130

 

Isn't there a court case or several right now regarding the onerous licensing and doctor hospital admitting practices that are making it well-nigh impossible for many women to get abortions in several states? I would think that kind of legislated dissuasion would be an exact parallel to this situation, and thus with access to a right being prevented by legislating it out of local availability would be the same for both cases.

 

So, it would seem that we are on the page, and with skinnyb82 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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