abolt243 Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:46 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:46 AM Sorry can someone tell me what this means for us, I'm multitasking so having a hard time reading the details. You can PM me if necessary. As I understand it, it's another judge in another court finding the Ag UUW statute of IL unconstitutional. And this Judge and Court are located in Cook County, the very baliwick of those that would deny us our rights. Another nail in the coffin, another round in the magazine to shoot back with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:49 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:49 AM So does this render UUW and AGUUW unconstitutional for all of us or just in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:51 AM Author Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:51 AM it makes it very difficult for them to continue to enforce the Felony side of it. and causes them a lot of problems on this issue. That beer is gonna tase so good tommorow. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phattony Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:53 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:53 AM 'Merica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:57 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 01:57 AM So this basically threw fuel into the fire under their *** to get a ccw bill goin and quit with the bans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlJ Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:02 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:02 AM Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDaveFactor Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:12 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:12 AM Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed I wouldn't hold your breath. That isn't the Madigan way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:13 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:13 AM Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed I'd settle for HB1155 with all amendments stripped off except HFA 27! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDaveFactor Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:27 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:27 AM Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passed I'd settle for HB1155 with all amendments stripped off except HFA 27! I'm really hoping that we finally DON'T have to settle for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlJ Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:28 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:28 AM Need to get some news coverage out there. "While legislatures drag out the CC debate, judges forced to suspend charges on AGG UUW cases"That would put their feet to the fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpapageorgio Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:33 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:33 AM So under that Asst. Cook County State's Atty's testimony during the hearing in Springfield,aren't they bound by this judge's ruling since they aren't by the 7th CA's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDaveFactor Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:35 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:35 AM You know... I feel we may be a little spoiled. Having Todd keeping us so informed on these new rulings. I sure hope those nice targets folks at Stop Concealed Carry have somebody to keep them up to speed on this stuff... Although... I guess, for them, this is probably just more bad news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:45 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:45 AM You know... I feel we may be a little spoiled. Having Todd keeping us so informed on these new rulings. I sure hope those nice targets folks at Stop Concealed Carry have somebody to keep them up to speed on this stuff... Although... I guess, for them, this is probably just more bad news... They do, us.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:48 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:48 AM Maybe our anti-constitution legislatures can quit playing games with their amendments and get that 997 out there and passedI hope, but constitutional carry is our fall back position and I am beginning to think it is also theirs. We will have to stand strong and be willing to say "NO".I think they have been having things their way for so long that they will not consider defeat. A set back maybe but they will keep pushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:50 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:50 AM So under that Asst. Cook County State's Atty's testimony during the hearing in Springfield,aren't they bound by this judge's ruling since they aren't by the 7th CA's? I was waiting for someone to mention that. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDaveFactor Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:54 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:54 AM but constitutional carry is our fall back position and I am beginning to think it is also theirs. Honestly, I believe that it is their fall back position too. In fact, it may be their primary strategy. They may be counting on the ability to stretch out the fight for awhile by making us have to push through a bunch of local restrictions from community to community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:57 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:57 AM Since Paul Castigliano is an idiot I'm sure he's telling everyone that this ruling doesn't mean anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted March 23, 2013 at 03:09 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 03:09 AM I like the comparison pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted March 23, 2013 at 04:12 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 04:12 AM You know, this really is getting intriguing... Just think, not too far in the future this will be taught in every poly sci class in the country. I think there are some folks on our side who should get royalties from the textbook publishers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:11 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:11 AM Am I missing something? It seems like the court was essentially saying that the mere possession of a firearm does not qualify as a crime punishable as a felony. Is that an over reach on my part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:24 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:24 AM Am I missing something? It seems like the court was essentially saying that the mere possession of a firearm does not qualify as a crime punishable as a felony. Is that an over reach on my part? Yeah, basically with a hook... He said that they can charge you with either a misdemeanor or a felony with a mandatory 1 year in prison for the exact same crime with no additional qualifiers or circumstances necessary to be charged with a felony over the misdemeanor, thus disproportionate penalties for the same crime and a violation of your 8th Amendment Rights... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:30 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:30 AM Well, if the defendant did have a foid, but the firearm was uncased and loaded, then could it still be a felony but without the mandatory or did the ruling say that the felony charge was unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:38 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:38 AM Well, if the defendant did have a foid, but the firearm was uncased and loaded, then could it still be a felony but without the mandatory or did the ruling say that the felony charge was unconstitutional? I don't have all the details of what went down or what brought up the charges, and what ifs are not ruled upon only the what dids... Basically he said the law(s) conflicts themselves in penalties and is thus unconstitutional, but the law at the core has already been ruled unconstitutional by the 7th, this just adds ammo as it's now saying that the conflicting penalties part are unconstitutional as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted March 23, 2013 at 06:03 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 06:03 AM I did a google search and can't find a transcript etc of this ruling. Does anyone have a link? Also, if the judge ruled " that as to these provisions the aggravated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconstitutional both on it's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably construed in a manner that would preserve its validity" then the only thing left to charge someone with for carrying a loaded gun on their person is a Class A misdemeanor? In other words the judge struck down the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute but not the unlawful use of a weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted March 23, 2013 at 06:07 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 06:07 AM I did a google search and can't find a transcript etc of this ruling. Does anyone have a link? Also, if the judge ruled " that as to these provisions the aggravated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconstitutional both on it's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably construed in a manner that would preserve its validity" then the only thing left to charge someone with for carrying a loaded gun on their person is a Class A misdemeanor? In other words the judge struck down the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute but not the unlawful use of a weapon?Based on the limited info available, that is the way I read it. Not that I am anxious to test the theory, but that is what it seems to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted March 23, 2013 at 06:13 AM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 06:13 AM I did a google search and can't find a transcript etc of this ruling. Does anyone have a link? Also, if the judge ruled " that as to these provisions the aggravated unlawful use of a weapons statute is unconstitutional both on it's face and as applied to the defendant because it cannot be reasonably construed in a manner that would preserve its validity" then the only thing left to charge someone with for carrying a loaded gun on their person is a Class A misdemeanor? In other words the judge struck down the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute but not the unlawful use of a weapon?Based on the limited info available, that is the way I read it. Not that I am anxious to test the theory, but that is what it seems to be. Of course, a Class A Misdemeanor is still punishable by up to 364 days in jail and fines up to $2,500.00 if I remember correctly. So yeah, I won't be testing it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:53 PM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 02:53 PM guys, this one might have gotten past me. I don;t remember it, and as described, it sounds as if it was goign after kids carrying guns illegally, but as we all know the rule of unintended consequenses. Still I have been on the phone tonight with some people and this judge just messed up a bunch of peoples plans for HB-2265. I think this gives us even more ability to go in and re-write the law. I'll buy you the box of pens !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted March 23, 2013 at 04:16 PM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 04:16 PM Doesn't this kind of hurt us in regards to getting a bill passed? Seems like it forces their hand more toward constitutional carry, which we do not want.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted March 23, 2013 at 04:47 PM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 04:47 PM Constitutional carry with pre-emption would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:28 PM Share Posted March 23, 2013 at 05:28 PM Constitutional carry with pre-emption would be fine. Preemption is the kicker. How unfun would it be getting arrested for being pulled over on 294 for the breif little stretch through Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.