Jump to content


Photo

Moore/Shepard Ruling Announced


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#91 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 12,501 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:22 PM

From the latest Tribune article:

Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has repeatedly sponsored concealed weapons legislation, hailed the measure as a “mandate."
“The justices more or less said Illinois has a mandate to get something passed within 180 days… to pass a concealed-carry law in the state of Illinois,” said Phelps, a Democrat from Downstate Harrisburg.
“I never thought we’d get a victory of that magnitude,” Phelps said.
Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#92 Getzapped

    Gunsmith Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • 2,031 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:23 PM

So can this just be delayed to infinity from countless appeals from the state?


I really do not think this will happen. Madigan (Lisa) cannpt take it to SCOTUS for fear that SCOTUS will ruule against her, thus striking down "may issue" all over the country.
2. Todd is in the driver's seat. If they come up with a Bill we don't like, we can delay a vote until the 180 days is over which i have (very aptly) named the "concealed carry cliff".
3. If they can't get a Bill done in 180 days, your FOID allows carry open or concealed. The newscasters are already talking about it.




June 9th is officailly concealed carry cliff!! that made me laugh!

logoforum_zps0763fe59.png


#93 ChicagoSigFan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 10

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:25 PM

I hope this spells the end of Chicago's silly ordinance and CFP.

#94 tysonu74

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:27 PM

Love the sounds of this---- "The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."

#95 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

I hope this spells the end of Chicago's silly ordinance and CFP.


Eventually, I suppose. But at the very least it means their ban on carrying will go away.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#96 whosawmike

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:31 PM

BEST WEEK EVER!! (I had an amazing day yesterday)

A favorable ruling AND I see that Bud is back! Doubly good day!

#97 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,029 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:32 PM

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.
...

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear
in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear
arms depend on casualty counts.


Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!)

Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.
Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights.

The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions.

Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#98 bushyfan24

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Joined: 12-March 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:32 PM

I am so glad i was dead wrong about how i thought this ruling would come down.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2



Edited by bushyfan24, 11 December 2012 - 01:33 PM.


#99 TTIN

    si vis pacem, para bellum

  • Members
  • 3,526 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 06

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:33 PM

YYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!
:Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon: :Drunk emoticon:
Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense".

"God made men,but Colt made them equals"

"Guns don't kill people..husbands who come home early do" -Larry The Cable Guy

"Illinois: Will the Defendant Please Rise?"

"si vis pacem, para bellum"

#100 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:37 PM

From the Sun Times:

The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.


2013?? What's wrong with 2012?

#101 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:39 PM

Oh no, I just remembered....the world is going to end in 10 days. No CCW for you!
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

#102 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:39 PM

I must admit I thought the chances were against us at this level, but glad to see it, even if the 180 days could become an indefinite period of time until SCOTUS gets it shot at it.

It is still in the wait and see what happens phase, but it is good to see.

I wonder how SCOTUS deals with the circuit split that we now have?

I think they are going to have to hear a case in the 2013 session. Probably not enough time to get it in this session.

The way the thing is worded makes me think there is a good chance the court does not give the state any additional time and their only hope is to get SCOTUS to give them that time, and I have no idea how that would go down.

I think it bodes well for some kind of LTC by the end of 2013 in IL.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#103 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:40 PM

Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately?

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

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#104 Scots

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:40 PM

I am very interested to hear the statements of Quinn, Rahm, and others in the next day or two.
NRA Life Member, SAF Life Member, ISRA Member

#105 Scots

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:41 PM

Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately?


My understanding is that it all depends on what the bill that is proposed allows for. If we push through a bill that preempts home rule, then no.
NRA Life Member, SAF Life Member, ISRA Member

#106 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,106 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:43 PM

Congratulations Everyone!!!

Now,....Let's everybody get behind Todd!!

#107 LYU370

    Member

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:44 PM

Let's hope the legislature drafts a good Right to Carry bill, not just a concealed carry bill. I would hate to be busted just because someone caught a glimpse of my weapon.

#108 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 12,501 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:44 PM

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.
...

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear
in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear
arms depend on casualty counts.


Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!)

Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.
Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights.

The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions.


I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.
Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#109 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:44 PM

Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately?


not if we insist on complete preemption to the field of regulation of arms. might as well get rid of the silly knife rules a lot of places have as well.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#110 jobes

    We will win this War-Stand and Fight! IC Member 884

  • Members
  • 1,260 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 08

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

I am very interested to hear the statements of Quinn, Rahm, and others in the next day or two.


Don't forget Chicago's very own father, Father Pfleger

#111 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.
Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.


I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#112 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,277 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.
Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.


I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point.


Where's the split?
Here they ruled on a complete ban. No recourse, no ability to carry at all in any way in any place.
Other rulings have been about places that had a permit system and required "good cause" or some other non-sense.
I dont see the split, but then again I am not a lawyer.
Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#113 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,106 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

Let's hope the legislature drafts a good Right to Carry bill, not just a concealed carry bill. I would hate to be busted just because someone caught a glimpse of my weapon.


As it has been said, "Todd is in the driver's seat."

Have faith in what Todd will push forward from here. He won't miss a big gaping hole such as that.

#114 gravyboy77

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,629 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 05

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:49 PM

Todd says that all the compromises that were made in the previous legislation.....just went out the window. lol

http://www.chicagotr...0,7034171.story

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."


This is unbelieable!!!
"The Obama administration: Erasing the line between satire and reality since January 20, 2009″

How much more Illegal than Illegal can we make it to murder someone with an Illegally possessed anything?

#115 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,029 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:51 PM

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.
...

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear
in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear
arms depend on casualty counts.


Well stated GF - you beat me to the punch. (I love the way you think!)

Blackstone's description of the right of Englishmen to "bear and carry" arms because of a fundamental right of self-preservation against violence is key.
Additionally, the base of American law, at the time of the writing of the Constitution / Bill of Rights was English law of the period. The 2A follows Blackstone's writing and is why it is in the Bill or Rights.

The ruling of the 7th court is sound and is in line with the Heller / McDonald decisions.


I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.
Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.


Well said Lou - my take as well - SCOTUS has already basically decided this- no need to retrace footsteps..

Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Phil Compton "ishmo", "L" Company 75th Infantry (RANGER) 101st Airborne Division (VietNam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a good soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#116 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:54 PM

I'm far from a legal scholar but with the numerous references to past SCOTUS decisions that the 7th used in writing their decision, SCOTUS will just refuse to hear the case.
Lisa is free to appeal but SCOTUS is free to refuse to review it.


I think it is a good decision but it makes for a circuit split. I don't see how SCOTUS can ignore that by refusing to hear an appeal on it. What that means to us as a practical matter is just a guess at this point.


Where's the split?
Here they ruled on a complete ban. No recourse, no ability to carry at all in any way in any place.
Other rulings have been about places that had a permit system and required "good cause" or some other non-sense.
I dont see the split, but then again I am not a lawyer.


a permit that is all but impossible to obtain is not far from a system of no carry at all.

I am surprised the state did not claim that one can carry while hunting so there really was no absolutely ban. I do not think it would have made any real difference though.

I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS take several cases and roll them into a single opinion. probably not until the fall 2013 session though.

No reason to wait though. Hard to say what SCOTUS might do and better to get what we can while can.

Edited by bob, 11 December 2012 - 01:56 PM.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#117 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:58 PM

But carrying while hunting doesn't satisfy the carrying for personal protection that was mentioned numerous times in the decision.
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

#118 Mac

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 07

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:07 PM

I just thank God that I was wrong in my beliefs on Illinois having Concealed carry. This just instills in me the knowledge that Chicago does not have everything or everyone in their hip pocket. I am glad that the judges in this ruling refered to the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings for their issuance of this ruling. This is based on the Constitution and law not some stupid Chicago whim. Maybe now Chicago will thing twice before attacking the Constitution again.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. " Noah Webster

The founding fathers of this nation were very clear about the meaning of the second amendment and the Supreme Court has backed them up.-----Repeatedly.

The fiercest criminal the the citizen has to fear is a Government that becomes over-bearing.

Any right not exercised is a forgotten right.

#119 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,116 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

Can Chicago and Cook County use home rule to pass new public carry bans until someone sues them separately?


My understanding is that it all depends on what the bill that is proposed allows for. If we push through a bill that preempts home rule, then no.


I would say even with a preemption of home rule you could still have trouble. Down in Florida the STATE has preemption of ALL firearms laws yet some localities continue to illegally pass and enforce their own firearms laws. In the case of Florida you have a legislature and population hostile to such so you see pushback in the state house.
Do you really see Madigan pushing against an Illegal Chicago or Cook County law? It would take another lawsuit or two which would be won after a few years.

The WAR is not over, the battle is simply over. It was a great big battle that took a long time. We can rest up a little bit but the next battle will be coming before you know it.

#120 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 11 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

But carrying while hunting doesn't satisfy the carrying for personal protection that was mentioned numerous times in the decision.


It would have been a strategy that probably would have failed, but I am somewhat surprised they did not at least make the attempt to deflect the complete ban argument.

The right to self defense is making a comeback that is underlying a lot of this. That is maybe more important long term than the right to keep and bear firearms.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users