Jump to content


Photo

Moore/Shepard Ruling Announced


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#271 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,523 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:21 AM

Currie wants Lil Lisa to appeal to the SCOTUS

http://www.chicagode...stage-for-fight

You know what I think? I think that even if SCOTUS agreed to hear it, it would totally fail.

“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#272 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,523 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:23 AM

BTW - to anyone with a good knowledge of the case - there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia entry on either of the cases. We should get something up there.


I don't think anyone has updated the Illinois gun laws article yet either. I haven't been inclined to but I may jump on later today if someone doesn't beat me to it.

“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#273 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:24 AM

I wish they would appeal it now, with the current balance. Either way, it won't stop this 180 179 days.

#274 RGreen1911

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:20 AM

As to the order of the court it says nothing about review by the court of any legislation in 180 days. The order will take affect regardless of anything the legislature passes or fails to pass. If the new law is onerous and oppressive and unconstitutional the whole thing starts again… from scratch…! Never underestimate the Chicago Machine when it gets into full press mode. I like the comment the justices made in Ezzel v. City of Chicago: "...Chicago is thumbing its municipal nose at the Supreme Court."


Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.

#275 Handgunner230

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 51 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:51 AM

Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.


Yes. Imagine how the other side would act if given a similar mandate in their favor. They would use their new found leverage to get exactly what they want and more with no shame whatsoever. HB148 should be the other side's opening offer, not ours. I have full confidence in Todd, but I'm a little annoyed about the ISRA's push for HB148.

Edited by Handgunner230, 12 December 2012 - 11:54 AM.


#276 wtr100

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.


Yes. Imagine how the other side would act if given a similar mandate in their favor. They would use their new found leverage to get exactly what they want and more with no shame whatsoever. HB148 should be the other side's opening offer, not ours. I have full confidence in Todd, but I'm a little annoyed about the ISRA's push for HB148.


I saw ISRA maximum leader state 'We might not be so generous this time around.'

:drool:

Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, 60 rounds powder and ball and be ready to march at a minute's warning

ISRA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Instructor Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun
NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
ISP Approved Concealed Carry Instructor


#277 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:02 PM

Maximum Leader? Is he a cylon?

http://en.wikipedia....mperious_Leader

Edited by TyGuy, 12 December 2012 - 12:04 PM.

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#278 LYU370

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:31 PM

Yes, it should be phrased as the right to carry not just concealed carry.


That is EXACTLY right!
Indiana verbiage - "License to Carry a Handgun"

Yep, I agree. Since we have the upper hand for once, I'd like to see both concealed and open carry. Don't know if I'd ever want to open carry, but it would be nice to have that option from the get go, instead of fighting for it at some point in the future.

#279 drdoom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 08

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

It's about time we had our moment of glory, we've seen our bills get gunned down session, after session. Our best option is to sit and do nothing.

#280 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:54 PM

I know he is carrying a gun. I bumped against his side and saw the outline of his GUN. ARREST the crazy killer officer.

While we have the checkbook lets spend our money wisely. Why have to spend millions later to get FULL carry?

#281 whyzdom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 07

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:59 PM

Waiting patiently to hear more from The Todd. :ninja:

#282 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:01 PM

As to the order of the court it says nothing about review by the court of any legislation in 180 days. The order will take affect regardless of anything the legislature passes or fails to pass. If the new law is onerous and oppressive and unconstitutional the whole thing starts again… from scratch…! Never underestimate the Chicago Machine when it gets into full press mode. I like the comment the justices made in Ezzel v. City of Chicago: "...Chicago is thumbing its municipal nose at the Supreme Court."


Give me one good reason why the pro-carry lobby would allow an onerous and oppressive bill to pass? People seem to be forgetting that this time around, they need OUR votes, we don't need THEIRS. We can sit around and obstruct and not do anything. Then we get constitutional carry in 180 days. If they want to prevent that, it is THEY who have to come ready to play ball and make concessions. We have no reason to negotiate.


We were always the reasonable ones, the carrot didn't work, a bigger stick did. However, the court clearly left this in the hands of the legislators, so we still need votes to pass a good bill, the first time, and not have to end up back in litigation. Don't get me wrong, there was fair warning and now one heck of a big 'I told you so' is due, but we must reman reasonable and level headed moving forward.

Edited by 05FLHT, 12 December 2012 - 01:02 PM.

NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#283 LYU370

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:07 PM

Any chance Madigan would file an en banc motion? If so, what chances would she have? Looks like most of the Justices were appointed by Republicans, would that do if anything?

#284 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:39 PM

Waiting patiently to hear more from The Todd. :ninja:

This guy?


ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#285 Flubnut

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

In regards to "en banc", I'm hoping that the appeals court wouldn't allow it. From rotlaw.com (a random law firm I found while Googling) it sounds like they would have a hard time justifying it (emphasis mine):

Not all requests for a rehearing en banc are granted. Often, an appeals court will not take the time to rehear a case en banc unless the case includes a question of major importance (like how to interpret a new law), or the panel’s opinion appears to contradict state or federal law or precedent.



#286 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

flubnut thats a good find. answers many questions.they better just shut up and take it. there are other law suits they need to focus on like Wilson
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#287 Vitae Drinker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

I was shocked, frankly, when I saw this. I figured it would 2-1 the other way and would require another trip to the Supreme Court. But, since an en banc or a trip to the SC is very unlikely (since the anti-gun leaders of our country DO NOT want to lose there as that would open up a can of worms for a lot of other places), I say the most onerous restrictions we should accept are the following:
  • Prohibited in Government Buildings including Schools (kinda a gimme given the current political climate, not that I agree with it)
  • Training requirement (of no more than 8 hours), with a Hunter Safety course from any state, an NRA pistol safety course, or a Concealed Carry training course or Carry license from any other state having been possessed at least 1 year satisfying said training requirement.
  • a $10.00 processing fee for a stamp to be added to your FOID card, or perhaps a reissued FOCID (Firearm Owner and Carry IDentification) of some type (not that I agree with the FOID issuance, either).
  • All other states carry permits/licenses (however they are termed) are valid as long as they also meet the training/possession requirement.
Beyond that, I would say that's it. So you can carry open or concealed, your choice, and can be rifles, pistols, and/or shotguns wherever you want except with few restrictions.

Of course, I say the strategy should be to gather a block of enough legislators so that no legislation put forward regarding carrying can be passed, and on June 10th we get constitutional carry, where I can carry what I want, how I want, where I want as long as you have a FOID. Then we get rid of the FOID and the the rules prohibiting SBSs, SBRs, DD, and Full Auto. :devil:
"Always do the right thing. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest" -Mark Twain

#288 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:57 PM

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:09 AM



Some one put in a placeholder back in August????


Yeah! We were expecting a ruling at any time! :P


Oh yeah... I love it... Hope I can link to it from my blog...

[EDIT] My comment refers to the countdown time clock...

Regards, Drd...

Edited by dmefford, 12 December 2012 - 05:12 PM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#289 LYU370

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:09 PM

Of course, I say the strategy should be to gather a block of enough legislators so that no legislation put forward regarding carrying can be passed, and on June 10th we get constitutional carry, where I can carry what I want, how I want, where I want as long as you have a FOID. Then we get rid of the FOID and the the rules prohibiting SBSs, SBRs, DD, and Full Auto. :devil:

But if that happened and we ended up with constitutional carry, wouldn't Chicago, Crook County and any other municipality be free to create their own highly restrictive gun laws if they wanted?

#290 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:16 PM

It's about time we had our moment of glory, we've seen our bills get gunned down session, after session. Our best option is to sit and do nothing.


One other step is to stir up lots of debate until the time frame passes...! Then we will have defacto concarry...

Regards, Drd...
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#291 Vitae Drinker

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:21 PM

Of course, I say the strategy should be to gather a block of enough legislators so that no legislation put forward regarding carrying can be passed, and on June 10th we get constitutional carry, where I can carry what I want, how I want, where I want as long as you have a FOID. Then we get rid of the FOID and the the rules prohibiting SBSs, SBRs, DD, and Full Auto. :devil:

But if that happened and we ended up with constitutional carry, wouldn't Chicago, Crook County and any other municipality be free to create their own highly restrictive gun laws if they wanted?


No different than under any other Carry laws that could be passed. Just because a law is unconstitutional/illegal does not mean it won't be passed and then enforced.
"Always do the right thing. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest" -Mark Twain

#292 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,491 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:37 PM

If the new law is written correctly HOME RULE will not be an option for anywhere in the state. The ruling said FOR THE STATE IIRC.

Tod and the boys and girls have an advantage in that they can look at 49 other states and pick and choose what is best for us. Have faith.

#293 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

Here is the video footage from the KHQA interview after editing... It was on the 6 o'clock news...

http://www.connecttr...62#.UMlB13cyGSp

[Edited to add] I should say that I arranged for the reporter to visit with Sheriff Petty. Just so happened our resident game warden was present as well and they took her out shooting...

Regards, Drd...

Edited by dmefford, 12 December 2012 - 09:42 PM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#294 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:15 PM

Assuming that we get a RTC law within the 180 days, the state will have the ball in their court then and could do a slow walk to the implementation stage It could conceiveably take years and more court battles just to get a law implemented. I am sure that Todd and the movers and shakers are well aware of the pitfalls moving forward but if out-of-state non-resident permits were grandfathered in and made valid from day 1 for Illinois residents who have them as well as out-of-state permits for residents from other states the motive for slow walking implementation would be negated.
I think that whatever we don't get in the first bill will be a long time coming if we decide to not go for the most sweeping RTC law ever enacted short of Constitutional Carry.

I would be interested to hear anyone explain what the downside of simply letting the time expire would be. Seriously! I am sure that there is a downside, but is it worse than insisting of the best RTC law ever passed.

Missouri has a good law, but we can do a lot better now that we have the momentum. They should have taken our offer.

#295 LYU370

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Joined: 21-July 12

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:25 PM

I guess my question is, if a RTC bill is not approved and it defaults to constitutional carry, there would be no law on the books to prevent any type of home rule. What would stop Chicago & Cook County from passing some type of draconian may issue laws?

#296 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:26 PM

I think our total focus and object should be getting a fair carry bill passed as quickly as possible

Dragging things out in an attempt to get really hard to swallow ideas by the chicago machine approved is counter-productive.

I am a 'purist" at heart. What i mean by that is I fervently believe there are people in this State who desperately need to be armed for their own safety, i.e. seniors, battered women, folks who are forced to work in or commute through bad areas, etc.

I really believe, very strongly, that concealed carry is desperately needed now because the life that may get saved just might be a member of my family or one of my friends.

If the other side threw up their hands and said they would accept HB 148 (with modifications of the training, most of the geographical restrictions and curtting the ISP out of the proicess totally) I would accept it. In other words, HB 5745 is just about immediately acceptable to me.

I "edited" this to add: I actually like HB 5745 much better than 148. If the geographical restrictions were reduced to a minimum I would accept it totslly. The training requirements are much easier and many folks here already qualify.

Edited by Bud, 12 December 2012 - 09:41 PM.

Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#297 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,735 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:33 PM

http://www.mediacomt....ap.org>&ps=931
This is a pretty good article.
BTW, can Flynn Currie Be any more idiotic?

Edited by sirflyguy, 12 December 2012 - 09:36 PM.

United States Concealed Carry Association Certified Firearms Instructor

Defensive Firearms Coach (DFC) 

Fundamentals of Home Defense Handgun

Fundamentals of Concealed Carry
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 
NRA-Certified Chief Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor
http://www.mlftraining.com
https://www.facebook...ps/mlftraining/


#298 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,698 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:43 PM

Grey, PM sent, hope that helps.
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#299 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:44 PM

I guess my question is, if a RTC bill is not approved and it defaults to constitutional carry, there would be no law on the books to prevent any type of home rule. What would stop Chicago & Cook County from passing some type of draconian may issue laws?


They will not be able to completely ban all forms of public carry... You can bet that will not stop King Rahm...!

Regards, Drd...
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#300 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,997 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:06 PM

I liked 5745 better too.

For one thing it didn't call for having a gun in a vehicle hidden from public sight - which to me, if you don't have that in there, it's an open invitation to anti-gun police to charge you with violating the law because they'll claim they were able to see your firearm in your car. The only way to stop that would be to have it locked up in a console or compartment - and then you're really not that far from what we have right now.

5745 says:

Provides that a license to carry a handgun entitles a licensee to carry a loaded handgun, either concealed or openly, on or about his or her person or in a vehicle

148 says:

carried in a vehicle in such a way as it is concealed from view of the public


Edited by C0untZer0, 12 December 2012 - 10:08 PM.

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users