cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:05 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:05 PM (edited) The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Just playing devil's advocate here but......... Accordingly, as the Seventh Circuit did in Moore, we here hold that, on its face, section 24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(A) violates the right to keep and bear arms,as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution. If those sections, UUW and AUUW are unconstitutional and FCCA only provides an exception to them for those who possess a permit issued under the exception, how can you be charged? They can't charge you for violating an unconstitutional law, or the individual officer is libel for damages, therefore we should now have open carry, correct? This basically is the same thing as if the judges had, instead of ruling in the states favor, issued the injunction ordered by the 7th on the day the FCCA passed. IANAL but just using common sense, there is NO difference to me whether the IL Supreme Court issued the ruling or the 7th. If the law is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Edited September 12, 2013 at 04:10 PM by cshipley92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:10 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:10 PM There are a ton of reasons why you can't carry today. All that matters is that the statute challenged in Aguilar no longer exists. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:13 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:13 PM There are a ton of reasons why you can't carry today. All that matters is that the statute challenged in Aguilar no longer exists. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 My point exactly. And since the FCCA didn't CHANGE that statute, but provided an exception to it, how can we be charged under the UUW statute? ie, If I were to carry today (not saying I will but...) what law would I be violating? UUW no longer exists so they couldn't charge me with that. So, what law would they charge me with breaking????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANDY Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:17 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:17 PM (edited) I think the logic some people are trying to make, but I am not sure it is true is. Since the UAAW has been found unconstitutional, which means it was unconstitutional at the time of passing, how can you have an exception to a law that never constitutional to start with. Edited September 12, 2013 at 04:19 PM by RANDY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:19 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:19 PM I think the logic some people are trying to make, but I am not sure it is true is. Since the UAAW has been found unconstitutional, which means it never existed, how can you have an exception to a law that never existed. Exactly. or as I said above.... What law can they charge a person for carrying under? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls74 Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:54 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:54 PM Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:54 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:54 PM Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun. This is my thought. It is still the law until it is challenged in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:00 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:00 PM Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun. a loaded and partially or fully concealed firearm...yes. but what about open carry? What would they charge you with there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:04 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:04 PM Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun. Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls74 Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:05 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:05 PM A bit off topic, but ever wonder if the anonymous users are friend or foe? Always seem to be on the big topics. I've always disliked that feature on forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cls74 Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:07 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:07 PM Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun. Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists?Yeah, I'm unsure there. Hopefully the SA he mentioned in the other thread returns his call. Will be an interesting response. Don't think Morgan county ever joined the will not prosecute counties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:11 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:11 PM Couldn't you be charged with carrying without an IL permit? PA 098-0063 is law and requires a permit for an IL resident to carry a loaded and ready to use handgun. Yes but it's an exemption to an unconstutional law, like cshipley said how can you have an exemption of a law that no longer exists?Yeah, I'm unsure there. Hopefully the SA he mentioned in the other thread returns his call. Will be an interesting response. Don't think Morgan county ever joined the will not prosecute counties. Not officially, but he did say that he would handle each instance on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:19 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:19 PM I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:30 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:30 PM I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:34 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:34 PM I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters. Ha Ha my comment here just reminded me that mine had expired and I probably looked like a hypocrite........ just re-upped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:35 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:35 PM I'm an anonymous user who's a friend. I can only speak for myself, however.Don't worry Obama knows who you are LOL But hey at least you are a supporting member, to me that is all that matters. Ha Ha my comment here just reminded me that mine had expired and I probably looked like a hypocrite........ just re-upped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:54 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 05:54 PM And now I'm 2 posts closer to my first star! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onytay Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:00 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:00 PM And now I'm 2 posts closer to my first star! No star just a measly little dot, stars don come until 1000 post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:27 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:27 PM Wait, so it is now my constitutional right to ccw outside my home. Is it also my right to carry said weapon on the cta or in a city park? Those folks who said the NRA/ISRA sold us out probably won't understand the true meaning of the question, but perhaps there is a logic to the steps taken after all. I am as pro 2A as anyone this board, but I can also see the reality of our situation. It gives me a certain clarity as to the current chain of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:33 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:33 PM interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:35 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:35 PM Wait, so it is now my constitutional right to ccw outside my home. Is it also my right to carry said weapon on the cta or in a city park? Those folks who said the NRA/ISRA sold us out probably won't understand the true meaning of the question, but perhaps there is a logic to the steps taken after all. I am as pro 2A as anyone this board, but I can also see the reality of our situation. It gives me a certain clarity as to the current chain of events. Not CCW...............Bear......big difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:40 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:40 PM I am going out on a limb to post this. I will absolutely not give out a name, but about two months ago, I was told by a CPD officer first hand that they are not currently enforcing UUW unless it is a non FOID, known gang member or involving another crime or an assault weapon. These questions you all are asking are exactly why. Even the state's attorneys don't exactly know the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:52 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:52 PM Be very cautious, the footnote to Paragraph 22 states, in part, "...neither the Firearms Concealed Carry Act nor the amended AUUW statute is at issue in this case." Paragraph 21 is powerful though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:55 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:55 PM Wait, so it is now my constitutional right to ccw outside my home. Is it also my right to carry said weapon on the cta or in a city park? Those folks who said the NRA/ISRA sold us out probably won't understand the true meaning of the question, but perhaps there is a logic to the steps taken after all. I am as pro 2A as anyone this board, but I can also see the reality of our situation. It gives me a certain clarity as to the current chain of events. Not CCW...............Bear......big difference I agree, but if you reword it as BEAR ARMS outside the home, the question remains. I think I see the next chink in the armor. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wi300 Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:56 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:56 PM John Bosce posted this earlier today. http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=9194 What he is thinking by posting this is beyond me. Put it this way, I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:59 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 06:59 PM Of course this won't happen, but if the FCCA is only an exception to an unconstitutional laws, perhaps it should be scrapped all together. Maybe we need to start all over with a whole new law. Now, with this ruling in place, what do you think that might look like? like I said, I doubt it'll happen. But it sure is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:30 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:30 PM Does anyone else remember Paul "the constitutional scholar" Castiglione's statement that since the IL SC has not ruled that carry outside the home falls under the scope of the 2A so Crook County doesn't have to follow Moore? Well, now he's got his ruling. And now the state has to follow precedents set in Moore and Aguilar. Have a nice day, Paul Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:34 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:34 PM Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:38 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:38 PM Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please. I second that request.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0beit Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:43 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 07:43 PM (edited) Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please. I believe he's talking about this? "The following is the full text of an announcement that was sent by the Criminal Division to the United States Attorneys' Offices upon the passage of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment) in the fall of 1996. This provision amends the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 by banning the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Limitations on Previous Convictions -- 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)( . To qualify:(1) at the time of previous conviction, the defendant must have been represented by counsel, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel;(2) if the offense of previous conviction entitled the person to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either the case was tried by a jury, or the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise; and (3) the conviction can not have been expunged or set aside, or be an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. The issue of restoration of civil rights must be carefully researched for each potential defendant. For example, in some states a person automatically loses his/her civil rights upon the execution of a sentence of imprisonment (felony or misdemeanor) only to have the rights restored upon the defendant's release from prison or sentence. However, in those states, a person who does not serve a sentence of imprisonment may not lose their civil rights and, therefor, this limitation may not be applicable. But, in United States v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627 (1st Cir. 1996), the Court held that in at least some instances if one group of felons may possess a firearm because their rights were automatically taken away and then restored then those who do not have their rights taken away may also possess a firearm. The Terrorism and Violent Crime Section can provide assistance in analyzing particular cases. http://www.justice.g...e9/crm01117.htm Not sure if this is it. EDIT: Also this http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 (20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include— (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or ( any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less. What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. Edited September 12, 2013 at 07:53 PM by s0beit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now