AuroraInstructor Posted February 2, 2019 at 04:11 PM Share Posted February 2, 2019 at 04:11 PM what are the odds that JB pritzker might attempt to attack the shell issue clause of the firearm concealed carry act, or is that not possible because of the way judge Posner worded his decision that gave us concealed carry to begin with? My other concern is with respect to preemption, does it look like he would have enough votes to overturn preemption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted February 2, 2019 at 07:17 PM Share Posted February 2, 2019 at 07:17 PM what are the odds that JB pritzker might attempt to attack the shell issue clause of the firearm concealed carry act, or is that not possible because of the way judge Posner worded his decision that gave us concealed carry to begin with?My other concern is with respect to preemption, does it look like he would have enough votes to overturn preemption?The Democrats have enough votes to pass whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 2, 2019 at 07:21 PM Share Posted February 2, 2019 at 07:21 PM what are the odds that JB pritzker might attempt to attack the shell issue clause of the firearm concealed carry act, or is that not possible because of the way judge Posner worded his decision that gave us concealed carry to begin with? My other concern is with respect to preemption, does it look like he would have enough votes to overturn preemption?Posner worded the decision specifically to allow a NY-style May (not) Issue system, however the writing may be on the wall for may issue in general, with the DC circuit ruling it unconstitutional SCOTUS may have to take the next case that comes out of NY or CA challenging it to resolve the circuit split As for preemption, they will likely eliminate the AWB preemption if their statewide ban doesn't pass for some reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted February 2, 2019 at 08:29 PM Share Posted February 2, 2019 at 08:29 PM They were already pushing to eliminate preemption last session, expect that to come back up this session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted February 2, 2019 at 08:49 PM Share Posted February 2, 2019 at 08:49 PM Knowing them they won't change FCCL to may issue until the majority of the first renewal year is over. That way they have our money and get to revoke our permits. It's a win win for them and a double loss for us. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 2, 2019 at 09:05 PM Share Posted February 2, 2019 at 09:05 PM They were already pushing to eliminate preemption last session, expect that to come back up this session. Preemption is only an issue to them when the state law is less strict than they want, with them being able to pass whatever AWB/mag ban they want at the state level preemption is no longer a problem. It may even work in their favor (for example Chicago's 15 round mag ban being preempted by the state's proposed 10 round ban) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted February 3, 2019 at 08:18 PM Share Posted February 3, 2019 at 08:18 PM Knowing them they won't change FCCL to may issue until the majority of the first renewal year is over. That way they have our money and get to revoke our permits. It's a win win for them and a double loss for us. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk I doubt they would revoke active permits but I could see permits being allowed to expired and blocking renewals, or grandfathering those with active permits for renewal and not allowing new permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted February 3, 2019 at 09:56 PM Share Posted February 3, 2019 at 09:56 PM Knowing them they won't change FCCL to may issue until the majority of the first renewal year is over. That way they have our money and get to revoke our permits. It's a win win for them and a double loss for us. Sent from my SM-G955U using TapatalkThe money has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted February 4, 2019 at 06:25 PM Share Posted February 4, 2019 at 06:25 PM Because...making sure the most law-abiding segment of society can't carry guns will most certainly reduce crime! LMFAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 4, 2019 at 07:09 PM Share Posted February 4, 2019 at 07:09 PM You could argue that having what we hope is a pro-2A majority at SCOTUS increases the chances of anti-2A state laws being enacted. If the Court strikes them down, a weakly anti-2A or maybe weakly pro-2A legislator gains points with anti-2A voters. Meanwhile, the legislator may still keep some support from the less-attentive 2A rights advocates, on some sort of twisted no harm/no foul calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted February 5, 2019 at 02:53 PM Share Posted February 5, 2019 at 02:53 PM You could argue that having what we hope is a pro-2A majority at SCOTUS increases the chances of anti-2A state laws being enacted. If the Court strikes them down, a weakly anti-2A or maybe weakly pro-2A legislator gains points with anti-2A voters. Meanwhile, the legislator may still keep some support from the less-attentive 2A rights advocates, on some sort of twisted no harm/no foul calculation. Actually, I'd argue the opposite. Right now, the status quo is more or less accepted by both sides. Nobody likes it, but there aren't many people challenging these laws to the SCOTUS. Any new law will trigger court cases that could make it to the SCOTUS. And, when that happens, the court can do anything. That can backfire on the antis and what the court rules is nearly set in stone. They could go much further on the pro side than the antis care to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted February 5, 2019 at 05:10 PM Share Posted February 5, 2019 at 05:10 PM Imho, at this point they recognize that a full frontal assault on the CCA is a tough move. Their entire game plan is to flank into other areas to make any kind of gun ownership as painful as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 5, 2019 at 05:22 PM Share Posted February 5, 2019 at 05:22 PM I wouldn't be surprised if they're just going to go full whacko and pass a ton of bad bills, figuring that we'll get bogged down in court. The problem being that it takes a long time for a case to get up to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has very limited bandwidth. Basically they can enact bad laws faster than SCOTUS can swat them down. The hope is that, after a few cases, SCOTUS will have clarified its position on 2A rights to the point that lower courts will start bouncing some of these laws, but that too will take time. I believe Todd once said something along the lines of that we are still in the early days of the modern era of 2A jurisprudence, and I think that's still correct. Expect a bumpy ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted February 5, 2019 at 06:14 PM Share Posted February 5, 2019 at 06:14 PM I wouldn't be surprised if they're just going to go full whacko and pass a ton of bad bills, figuring that we'll get bogged down in court. The problem being that it takes a long time for a case to get up to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has very limited bandwidth. Basically they can enact bad laws faster than SCOTUS can swat them down. I think there's a lot of validity to this statement. Of course, this only works if people comply with the bad laws...and I think gun owners have reached their limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcow1007 Posted February 11, 2019 at 01:23 PM Share Posted February 11, 2019 at 01:23 PM I wouldn't be surprised if they're just going to go full whacko and pass a ton of bad bills, figuring that we'll get bogged down in court. The problem being that it takes a long time for a case to get up to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has very limited bandwidth. Basically they can enact bad laws faster than SCOTUS can swat them down. I think there's a lot of validity to this statement. Of course, this only works if people comply with the bad laws...and I think gun owners have reached their limit.I agree. A lot of people have reached their limit. You see that with the Sheriffs that refuse enforcement or create a "sanctuary". It may be the case that they can pass more laws than scotus can swat, but if that starts happening, scotus can take one big swat and then lower courts have to follow their ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted February 11, 2019 at 08:11 PM Share Posted February 11, 2019 at 08:11 PM if that starts happening, scotus can take one big swat and then lower courts have to follow their ruling. I don't think SCOTUS ever takes a big swat. They only seem to nibble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcow1007 Posted February 12, 2019 at 02:42 AM Share Posted February 12, 2019 at 02:42 AM if that starts happening, scotus can take one big swat and then lower courts have to follow their ruling. I don't think SCOTUS ever takes a big swat. They only seem to nibble.They do generally have pretty narrow rulings, but not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted February 12, 2019 at 06:10 PM Share Posted February 12, 2019 at 06:10 PM We are heading for a showdown on "assault weapons" eventually. The court has refused to hear challenges up to this point. That could change...especially when Ginsburg dies/retires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.