810 replies to this topic

[lockman]

 


You make me feel...you make me feel...you make me feel like a natural person! (Sorry, this is where a musician's mind can go when reading "a natural person" several times!)
I find this an outstanding suit and hope it it resolved in the favor of the plaintiffs.


I will not be until the RIDICULOUS $300.00 price tag is reduced . That in itself is well placed road block and burden  in bold flashing neon lights saying we do not want anyone concealed carrying especially Non Residents
But it is a start and a good one
Thanks MollyB and Federal Farmer Good Job
 


 
One thing at a time.    Learn from the Kwong v. Bloomberg case.   The 2nd Circuit ruled that $455 for a 3 year home possession permit was perfectly constitutional, because the plaintiffs supposedly did not prove how it effected them.

You best plaintiff is someone on a fixed income on SSDI with a physically disability where $300 would basically cost them medicine for a month....

Yes, to each according to his need. /purple.

[Hap]

Too bad we will all be in wheelchairs before its ruled on.

 

It's for the children. (In my case, literally so - most of them live in other states.)

Edited by Hapless, 23 October 2014 - 06:24 AM.

[mauserme]

Too bad we will all be in wheelchairs before its ruled on.

LOL It does seem to take forever sometimes. It sure did when we were waiting for rulings in Heller, McDonald, Moore, Ezell, etc but in the end, we got them and they were worth the wait.

[domin8]

The greedy side of me hopes it takes forever. I hope this goes to SCOTUS. I could see SCOTUS ruling favorably for us on this. The reasoning here is that Oregon is just as bad as Illinois. Oregon is shall issue to its residents, may issue to residents that from states bordering Oregon, and no issue to everybody else. I have family in Oregon that I like to see. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my safety anywhere.

Edited by domin8, 23 October 2014 - 06:11 AM.

[Tvandermyde]

good for you guys

[brianj - now in Kansas]

I'm still somewhat surprised that we haven't managed to get nationwide carry based only on the 14th amendment, if nothing else.  For goodness sakes, we do it with drivers licenses, and, having driven through most of the country, I think a Chicago commuter is probably more dangerous than anything this side of a Ma Deuce.

 

So, if a Chicago commuter can drive anywhere in this country, I don't understand why (s)he can't carry anywhere in the country as well.

 

Bri

[pro2a]

Way to go Mike and Valinda!

[III]

Thank you for be a part of this important fight.  I will be moving to MO next year and I really hate that doing so will make me lose my IL CCW....I will still be working in IL and have my family here, so I really hope that this case will result in a decision that allows me to continue to protect both my family, as well as, myself when I am in IL.

[Googe1227]

Thanks to Molly, IC and all the plaintiffs!

[GWBH]

If I remember correctly, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to conceal carry without a permit. (Maybe one more)

 

Would this suit allow a resident from those states to carry without an actual permit?

Edited by GWBH, 23 October 2014 - 03:50 PM.

[domin8]

Iirc, the FCCA requires those people to have permits from their home state, where available, but must obtain an Illinois FCCL in order to carry in Illinois.  This lawsuit only challenges the constitutionality of the "substantially similar laws" requirement.  It has nothing to do with reciprocity or recognition of permits and licenses.

[GWBH]

Iirc, the FCCA requires those people to have permits from their home state, where available, but must obtain an Illinois FCCL in order to carry in Illinois.  This lawsuit only challenges the constitutionality of the "substantially similar laws" requirement.  It has nothing to do with reciprocity or recognition of permits and licenses.

 

I believe you are correct - my mistake.

Thanks my man!!

[ragsbo]

Kick Butt and Take Names! 

[borgranta]

I noticed that non-resident military members are some of the plaintiffs which is strange since I thought there was a federal law that required non-resident military members to be treated as residents while stationed within a state?  If so than ILLINOIS is not only violating the constitution but also violating federal law  by not offering the military members any means to acquire a resident CCW permit.

[jagt48]

Excellent!

[domin8]

Imo, those laws only apply to purchasing of firearms, thus nonresident active military are able to get a FOID Card. I'm not all versed on this though.

Edited by domin8, 23 October 2014 - 10:20 PM.

[jd11201]

Well, if that is true, and they want to amend the Complaint, have I got a potential co-plaintiff (from a state not represented by current co-plaintiffs, and a SAF life member) for Molly B and FF !

 

 

One thing at a time.    Learn from the Kwong v. Bloomberg case.   The 2nd Circuit ruled that $455 for a 3 year home possession permit was perfectly constitutional, because the plaintiffs supposedly did not prove how it effected them.

You best plaintiff is someone on a fixed income on SSDI with a physically disability where $300 would basically cost them medicine for a month....

 

Edited by jd11201, 24 October 2014 - 11:06 AM.

[Talonap]

If I remember correctly, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to conceal carry without a permit. (Maybe one more)

 

Would this suit allow a resident from those states to carry without an actual permit?

 

Arizona ...

[fnnuguy]

I'm still somewhat surprised that we haven't managed to get nationwide carry based only on the 14th amendment, if nothing else.  For goodness sakes, we do it with drivers licenses, and, having driven through most of the country, I think a Chicago commuter is probably more dangerous than anything this side of a Ma Deuce.

 

So, if a Chicago commuter can drive anywhere in this country, I don't understand why (s)he can't carry anywhere in the country as well.

 

Bri

Excactly, We need to fight for Nationwide recognition of a concealed carry license, why should you have to apply and pay for multiple CCL?  It is a National Constitutional Right!  States recognize DL's, Marriage licenses form other States, so WHY NOT CCl's

[Professor Wheezy]

 

 

You make me feel...you make me feel...you make me feel like a natural person! (Sorry, this is where a musician's mind can go when reading "a natural person" several times!)

I find this an outstanding suit and hope it it resolved in the favor of the plaintiffs.

I will not be until the RIDICULOUS $300.00 price tag is reduced . That in itself is well placed road block and burden  in bold flashing neon lights saying we do not want anyone concealed carrying especially Non Residents

But it is a start and a good one

Thanks MollyB and Federal Farmer Good Job

 

 

One thing at a time.    Learn from the Kwong v. Bloomberg case.   The 2nd Circuit ruled that $455 for a 3 year home possession permit was perfectly constitutional, because the plaintiffs supposedly did not prove how it effected them.

You best plaintiff is someone on a fixed income on SSDI with a physically disability where $300 would basically cost them medicine for a month....

 

I could be your man.  I applied for SSDI and am waiting to hear. Wife is not working but soon will be going back to work. I am also a WI resident on the border so a IL permit would be helpful. I just applied for WI permit so barring anything I don't know about that should go through.  But yes the cost of the permit alone would be prohibitive not to mention the extra hours of training required.  Even the $300 total cost of resident permit was prohibitive before I moved to WI. I can swing the $40 I just sent to the WI DOJ and my NRA basic Pistol Sufficed for training.    

[borgranta]

Could the CCL review board face a lawsuit like this.

[kwc]

Could the CCL review board face a lawsuit like this.

Read this:

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=48351

[Gray Peterson]

 

 


You make me feel...you make me feel...you make me feel like a natural person! (Sorry, this is where a musician's mind can go when reading "a natural person" several times!)
I find this an outstanding suit and hope it it resolved in the favor of the plaintiffs.


I will not be until the RIDICULOUS $300.00 price tag is reduced . That in itself is well placed road block and burden  in bold flashing neon lights saying we do not want anyone concealed carrying especially Non Residents
But it is a start and a good one
Thanks MollyB and Federal Farmer Good Job
 


 
One thing at a time.    Learn from the Kwong v. Bloomberg case.   The 2nd Circuit ruled that $455 for a 3 year home possession permit was perfectly constitutional, because the plaintiffs supposedly did not prove how it effected them.

You best plaintiff is someone on a fixed income on SSDI with a physically disability where $300 would basically cost them medicine for a month....

Yes, to each according to his need. /purple.

 

 

Not sure what you mean here.  Can you clarify?

[Mr. Fife]

purple means sarcasm on this forum

[domin8]

The more I think about this case the more I wonder about 1 question. Do any of the plaintiffs have a concealed carry permit from one of the "substantially similar" states? Having a plaintiff with that, imo, would strengthen the complaint by already proving beyond a reasonable doubt that discrimination violates the 14A because the ISP's definition of a substantially similar state proves the ISP is violating the COTUS and knows it.

[borgranta]

Are any of the plaintiffs from Vermont?  The reason I ask is because Vermont is a constitutional carry state and does not have a CCW licensing system and therefore a plaintiff from Vermont would be the perfect plaintiff challenging the validity of the part of the law that requires an applicant to have a valid license from their home state.

[kwc]

The complaint is attached to the first post and lists the resident states and licenses/permits held by each of the individual plaintiffs at the time of filing.

Edited by kwc, 05 December 2014 - 12:49 PM.

[domin8]

I know. I was hoping there was something I missed. I could go on about a missed opportunity here, but no need to fan the flames.

[press1280]

Can someone post the internet archive link for this case?

 

IRT a Vermont plaintiff, it doesn't matter necessarily in this case since only 4 states' residents are even eligible to apply. Now let's say the state loses and simply lets all other state residents apply (with home state permits only), THEN we need those VT residents. It's worth noting though that PA and NH don't require home state permits for those who live in no-issue states (like VT and DC). IL should recognize this, but who knows if they will.

[snubjob]

The Second Amendment Foundation seems to be the organization that is able to succeed in these suits. Their track record shows it.