Jump to content

bob

Members
  • Posts

    5,120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Winnebago County

bob's Achievements

Member

Member (24/24)

  1. The issue of OC of long guns is an interesting issue. The Heller decision is mostly historical in nature. Most firearms at the time the 2A was accepted were long guns and rarely if ever concealed. It appears to me that the Heller decision is pointing in the direction of OC being the protected right, maybe even only the OC of long guns, given the emphasis Scalia gave to the historical foundation of the 2A.
  2. It would go away if they'd just take a damn case and rule already. maybe they are waiting for the 'right" case. A one sentence denial of cert that goes something like this: "The court concurs with the decision of the appeals and district courts in this matter and remands the case to the appeals court for implementation and thus denies cert in this case".
  3. It would be interesting to see the weeping and gnashing of teeth that would go on.
  4. I think there is some terminology here that needs to be straightened out. Personally, I do not think there is any legal difference between "carrying" a concealed handgun or "transporting" one. There is nothing in the FCCA or any other law that makes that distinction. Read this carefully. This is just my opinion, mind you. I think you are mostly safe to carry on mass transit buses. Clearly a bus is a vehicle and the street or road is a public right of way. However, I don't think you can go into a publicly owned building. I don't think the typical bus stop shelter along side a street is a building but a bus station is a building. I don't see any way you can get on or off a train without passing through a publicly owned building (that would be the train station), and I don't think the train tracks are a public right of way, (it probably is a vehicle) so I don't see anyway you can carry (or transport) on a train. But, I would caution that none of this has been tested in court, and it is solely my opinion that it would shake out that way.
  5. I am curious. How is it that public transportation is Ok to transport on but no other public places? The laws just do not say that. I think in the end that is what the courts might effectively end up saying, but at present there just is no such provision
  6. I believe that is the important part, regardless of the dedicated NRA branches the NRA is still primarily a lobby and public relations organization promoting firearms, they tend to not stir the court battle pot they just give it nudges and then only when they deem it a promising case... And I do not fault them for that. they have their own agenda like every other entity out there that they need to push for their own reasons. it just happens that in this case their agenda clearly is to focus on concealed carry and they would just as soon not deal with open carry at all. I am not convinced they can avoid the open carry issue though. SCOTUS has been pretty clear that concealed carry can be heavily regulated and it is hard for me to see how a right can be regulated like that. It suggests to me that the court might well be hinting that the court is far less likely to tolerate restrictions on open carry. After all, traditionally the "bearing" of arms has been almost always open carry. The phrase it self conjurs up the image of someone toting around a gun openly. It is only fairly recently that concealed carry became popular. And the court is looking at what the amendment probably meant at the time it was enacted. At that time, there just was not much in the way of concealed carry, although it was not totally unheard of, especially in inclement weather.
  7. The NRA as an organization has a lot invested in promoting concealed carry, and almost nothing on open carry. I am not surprised they might suggest they would chose not to support an open carry case. As a practical matter it might be difficult for them to avoid becoming involved if such a case were to come forth. For instance, it it looked like it had a good chance of winning (like Heller) they would have to step in to protect a piece of their turf. They might also need to do so to try and keep their focus on concealed carry relevant. The huge investment they have in concealed carry runs the risk of being substantially devalued if an open carry case wins.
  8. I would not say it is protected at all. It was put in place in response to court pressure, but the actual terms of the law are not part of what the court required. It is possible (but unlikely IMO) that the GA might make it more restrictive. There is nothing in the court order that would prevent that. I think as a practical matter it would be very hard for Mike Madigan to allow his law to be changed in any significant way in the near future as that would show weakness on his part that cannot be shown. That might be our best protection at present against any significant changes for the worse. It would appear that the Senate is a lost cause at present. Pretty much anything anti-gun could probably get passed there without all that much trouble. It would be harder to get it past the house, although it would only need a bare majority, and Madigan could probably do it if he really wanted to. I doubt he would want to spend the political capital it would take. It just is not important enough to him.
  9. What he said. There is at least of decade of legal work to deal with the debacle of the FCCA. People want to have something happen quick, but the courts do not work like that.having a horribly written law that has major parts of it that no one knows what they mean makes it even worse.
  10. The law remains until it's repealed, and there's not nearly enough votes for that to happen. Bear in mind that there was majority support in the House before Moore v. Madigan for concealed carry. We had a majority before Moore but there was zero chance of it getting past the Senate then. There was no reason not to vote for it, and no doubt at least some who did vote for it voted for it solely because it was going to fail, and everyone knew it. In any case, I think it unlikely Mike Madigan would allow his handiwork to be disturbed.
  11. As for the members being "technically the owners", I think that is doubtful in a legal sense. Among other things, it would make for an all but unworkable situation when a member passed on as his heirs tried to divvy up his share of the club assets. You can't carry in the bar. It is a bar regardless of whether it is open to the public or not as the law does not specify whether or not it is open to the public and what the law actually says, is what it means. As for #11, it specifies a particular license - "Special Event Retailer's license as defined in Section 1-3.17.1". If this is the license being issued to the club for serving liquor in the rental hall, that hall is also banned. If it is some other license than maybe not unless 50% of the proceeds come from liquor sales. I have been to several events at Legion and VFW halls. It would not surprise me at all if the 50% rule covered those events. There was a lot of booze flowing and the events featured food brought in and not sold by the club so other than the popcorn they were selling, 100% of the proceeds was from liquor sales.
  12. The law says "A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into...". In my opinion, that is what it means. It does not mean "A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into unless it is unloaded and encased" or "A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into unless the banned location did not bother to post a sign". Until the courts say otherwise or the legislature changes the language, I have no desire to be the test case for the theory that because it is inconvenient for FCCL that the law's clear language does not mean what it says.
  13. An interesting point. I think you would have to lie under oath about it though I think that question is likely to be on the app. Some of this stuff will probably be sorted out by the courts in our favor eventually.
  14. the law seems clear. as part of this act, Illinois added a gem that required voluntary admissions to mental health facilities to be reported to the state and that a voluntary admission was a dis-qualifier for a FOID card and a LTC. no other states have a similar provision, so no non-residents qualify. I don't know if the wording of the law was an unintentional or deliberate thing. Either seems possible.
  15. I am not so sure I would be looking at someone who claims firearms law as their expertise. I think someone who is a criminal defense attorney might be the ticket. Preferably someone with some clue about firearms, but really the issue is being adequately defended. I suspect that requires the best criminal defense attorney you can afford as opposed to someone who merely claims expertise in firearms law.
×
×
  • Create New...