840 replies to this topic

[ike]

Papa ,#4 could go too, I only put that in  for people that already have a non-resident ccw and could use it as proof of a training program and it would have to be accepted here.just trying to stop the redundancy of training requirements

[Mr. Fife]

If I can exercise my First Amendment rights at the library, I would like to be able to exercise my Second Amendment rights there too.

[THE KING]

If we toss HB148 considering we are on the fast track with the courts and everyone here knows that these rulings are going are way because it is the Constituion and a fundamental and civil right.

I say sandbag HB148 and ask for Constitutional Carry. We have the upper hand and there are already 4 or 5 states that have Constitutional carry and the sky is not falling in those states. Considering Chicago and the State is backed into the corner ( the one they created by their own misgivings ) go for the whole ball of wax. No permit, No training requirement, No FEES and No FOID CARD.

Just list the prohibitive persons and prohibitive places and call it a day !!

Restore our constitutional right as it was meant to be.  

[colt-45]

THE KING, on 08 July 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

If we toss HB148 considering we are on the fast track with the courts and everyone here knows that these rulings are going are way because it is the Constituion and a fundamental and civil right.

I say sandbag HB148 and ask for Constitutional Carry. We have the upper hand and there are already 4 or 5 states that have Constitutional carry and the sky is not falling in those states. Considering Chicago and the State is backed into the corner ( the one they created by their own misgivings ) go for the whole ball of wax. No permit, No training requirement, No FEES and No FOID CARD.

Just list the prohibitive persons and prohibitive places and call it a day !!

Restore our constitutional right as it was meant to be.  

yep they had there chance,now it's time for use and i don't think they should get any money out of this either. foid card is the permit to carry. my2cents

[mauserme]

My only argument for some sort of permit/license/id is to help us in other states.

Perhaps FOID = Carry Permit until a voluntary permit system can be establish - a system which exists only for reciprocity.

ETA The voluntary Carry ID assumes the FOID requirement would be gone at some point.  There's no sense doubling up on cards, so one or the other.

[THE KING]

mauserme, on 08 July 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

My only argument for some sort of permiet/license/id is to help us in other states.

Perhaps FOID = Carry Permit until a voluntary permit system can be establish - a system which exists only for reciprocity.

I could agree with that. If we have Constitutional Carry. The current FOID card would be the permit that could be used in OTHER states but not required in Illinois.

Speaking of the FOID card. I have a simple question. When the injuction is granted and the AGUUW and UUW statutes are invalidated, does that also invalidate the FOID requirement ????

The FOID requirement is written in those statutes also ??

[mauserme]

I don't think so .  I would have to check but I believe the FOID requirement is its own act.


ETA  The Firearms Owners Identification Card Act can be found here.  It is separate from UUW.   Even more reason to consider this as it will not be touched by the injunction.

[ike]

King ,I agree. lets DEMAND Constitutional Carry and see what they have to offer,but to do that the state would have to amend its Constitution in section 22 about SUBJECT TO POLICE POWERS,the rights of the people won't be infringed.
We are now in what down here is called THE CATBIRD SEAT.As Rep. Phelps stated ,if you didn't like 148,you won't like what's going to come.let's give them alot to not like .nobody's fault but their own

[THE KING]

mauserme, on 08 July 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

I don't think so .  I would have to check but I believe the FOID requirement is its own act.


ETA  The Firearms Owners Identification Card Act can be found here.  It is seperate from UUW.

You are correct. The FOID requirement is it's own act, but the FOID requirememnt is also stated in the statutes that will have an injuction. Maybe what I'm getting at is under those statutes will the FOID requirement that pertains to the AGUUW and UUW statutes become null and void. It's almost like a catch 22.

[skottieusa]

Wanted to express my laymen's opinion that the memo of law in support of injunction by attorneys Jensen and Sigale was masterful.  Very well written and well reasoned.  Well done gentlemen!!!

[mauserme]

THE KING, on 08 July 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

You are correct. The FOID requirement is it's own act, but the FOID requirememnt is also stated in the statutes that will have an injuction. Maybe what I'm getting at is under those statutes will the FOID requirement that pertains to the AGUUW and UUW statutes become null and void. It's almost like a catch 22.

It would be interesting to read the FOID Act to see if it can stand by itself.  I'm guessing that it can but don't have the time to devote to it right now.

I bet Federal Farmer, Lockman, or Todd could shed some light.

[lockman]

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

05FLHT, on 07 July 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Even with an emergency session they will need 71 votes in the House to preempt home rule. Without support from pro-gun representatives they might not have that.

Could we be on the verge of Constitutional Carry?

UUW would be unenforceable.

But if they try to pass something before an injunction, UUW is still enforceable and home rule units would still be able to pass carry bans. Thus, 71 votes.

They would have to wait until after an injunction is issued which, hopefully, will severly limit what they might be able to include.

If the injunction were issued, enforcement against RTC by a local jurisdiction would be just as egregious. I bet any request for injunctive relief is worded to include any political subdivision of the state also.

[Federal Farmer]

ike, on 08 July 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

King ,I agree. lets DEMAND Constitutional Carry and see what they have to offer,but to do that the state would have to amend its Constitution in section 22 about SUBJECT TO POLICE POWERS,the rights of the people won't be infringed.
We are now in what down here is called THE CATBIRD SEAT.As Rep. Phelps stated ,if you didn't like 148,you won't like what's going to come.let's give them alot to not like .nobody's fault but their own

The state does not have to amend article 22 of its constitution to do anything.  'Subject to the police powers' is mostly surplussage.  Even the 1st Amendment is subject to the state's police powers.  It is the score of those police powers that is at question.  Ezell just gave us a tool tool to narrow the state's police powers over the 2nd Amendment.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[colt-45]

mauserme, on 08 July 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

My only argument for some sort of permit/license/id is to help us in other states.

Perhaps FOID = Carry Permit until a voluntary permit system can be establish - a system which exists only for reciprocity.

ETA The voluntary Carry ID assumes the FOID requirement would be gone at some point.  There's no sense doubling up on cards, so one or the other.

they could just send all foid card holders a paper that gives use both open and cc until the new cards come out.and thats just paper it wouldn't cost hardly anything. i think they need to get the DOPR and not the isp.

[Tvandermyde]

mauserme, on 08 July 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

THE KING, on 08 July 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

You are correct. The FOID requirement is it's own act, but the FOID requirememnt is also stated in the statutes that will have an injuction. Maybe what I'm getting at is under those statutes will the FOID requirement that pertains to the AGUUW and UUW statutes become null and void. It's almost like a catch 22.

It would be interesting to read the FOID Act to see if it can stand by itself.  I'm guessing that it can but don't have the time to devote to it right now.

I bet Federal Farmer, Lockman, or Todd could shed some light.

Yes the FOID act can stand on it's own if either case wins their motion.

UUW & AUUW is about carrying when not on your own land, or place of business -- out in public places. That is what we are seeking to undo, Illinois total ban on carrying. How is irrelevent, just getting it done.

[Sigma]

If the courts give us the injunction making uuw unenforceable there will be arrests for disorderly conduct and goofy stuff like they did in Wisconsin. To bad we dont have an Attorney General like they have

[05FLHT]

Sigma, on 08 July 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

If the courts give us the injunction making uuw unenforceable there will be arrests for disorderly conduct and goofy stuff like they did in Wisconsin. To bad we dont have an Attorney General like they have

Except they better have a damn good reason other than MWAG, otherwise it's time for a 1983 suit.

[mauserme]

lockman, on 08 July 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

If the injunction were issued, enforcement against RTC by a local jurisdiction would be just as egregious. I bet any request for injunctive relief is worded to include any political subdivision of the state also.

I agree.

What I was trying to say is if they try to pass a carry law before an injunction is issued, they will need 71 votes to override home rule because, at the point, home rule units would still have the ability to pass a ban on carry no matter how short lived that ban might ultimately be.

Waiting until after an injuction is issued would possibly reduce the required vote to 60 exactly because a complete ban at any level would likely not be an option, though I do still see at least one argument for 71 even then.  

Either way they have a difficult road ahead if they hope to pass anything as onerous as we've been subject to these past few decades.

[markthesignguy]

Jeffrey, on 08 July 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:

If the FOID is good enough for us to transport our guns, what difference is the transport if it is in a bag or on our person?

And whether or not it can be seen on our person, no less whether or not it is loaded.


Buy antacid stocks.

[NakPPI]

Any ccw bill must preempt home rule, otherwise cities will add on to the "sensitive places" included in the ccw law to make the law worthless, which would welcome more litigation. Chicago could say no loaded guns in grocery stores, etc etc until the whole city was a "sensitive place"

It's either going to be a super majority supported bill or federally imposed, it's up to the cook county legislators to pick their poison now...

[ishmo]

NakPPI, on 08 July 2011 - 03:41 PM, said:

Any ccw bill must preempt home rule, otherwise cities will add on to the "sensitive places" included in the ccw law to make the law worthless, which would welcome more litigation. Chicago could say no loaded guns in grocery stores, etc etc until the whole city was a "sensitive place"

It's either going to be a super majority supported bill or federally imposed, it's up to the cook county legislators to pick their poison now...

I think in the not too distant future the only thing Illinois/Chicago will be saying is, Yes Mr. Vandermyde, how would you like your bill worded?

[masconfusion]

The only problem with using the FOID exclusively is that it does not have the home rule prevention language... so certain northern Illinois cities would be creative.  What ever legislation is passed needs to supersede ALL units of government. (including public universities)  JMHO

[snubjob]

THE KING, on 08 July 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

If we toss HB148 considering we are on the fast track with the courts and everyone here knows that these rulings are going are way because it is the Constituion and a fundamental and civil right.

I say sandbag HB148 and ask for Constitutional Carry. We have the upper hand and there are already 4 or 5 states that have Constitutional carry and the sky is not falling in those states. Considering Chicago and the State is backed into the corner ( the one they created by their own misgivings ) go for the whole ball of wax. No permit, No training requirement, No FEES and No FOID CARD.

Just list the prohibitive persons and prohibitive places and call it a day !!

Restore our constitutional right as it was meant to be.  

AMEN!!

[Federal Farmer]

masconfusion, on 08 July 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

The only problem with using the FOID exclusively is that it does not have the home rule prevention language... so certain northern Illinois cities would be creative.  What ever legislation is passed needs to supersede ALL units of government. (including public universities)  JMHO

Heller overrides the state and also any local municipal ordinance, which are delegated from the state.  State cannot delegate a power it does not have.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[es503IL]

While I am all for Constitutional Carry, with a Permitting System available for reprocity for those who might wish to travel outside Illinois, tossing aside HB 148 might be a bit premature at this point. Even if the 7th Circuit issues the injunction, it can still be appealed. Nothing is final until it has been final for a couple of years. We should pursue both remedies at the same time. That way if one fails or is partially successful you are a couple of steps ahead on the other one.
If you think that the Brady Campaign is going to give up as soon as RTC is established in Illinois, you might want to rethink that position. First and foremost, is the money that Brady Campaign makes off of opposing the 2nd Amendment. This is a career for people and they are paid relatively well at the upper levels of the oganization. Secondly, as soon as some thing happens, they will redouble their efforts (look at AZ and Congresswoman Gifford). Imagine what the Brady Campaign would have pushed for if the NIU shooting had occurred right after RTC passed in Illinois.
The way we got ourselves into the mess we are currently in was by thinking that everything was fine and since we had Rights they could not be taken away through Legislation. Are we nearing the end of the main fight, Yes (optomistically) we are. Are we close to being done with this, absolutely not.

Theres still alot to be done (not a complete list);
-National Reprocity
-Abolish the FOID card (or at least make a CC Permit equal to a FOID)
-If you cannot get rid of FOID, at least make a change in the Legislation so you don't have to send in a photo w/ the application that simply gets thrown away
-Legalize Class III, SBR, SBS, Suppressors, AOW, DD for civilian ownership with "Shall Sign"
-Campus Carry

[Reggie]

I'm so lost.  So we're getting C.C. for sure?  I'm too excited to make sense of what I am reading.  It's all a blur.

[pyre400]

Reggie, on 08 July 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

I'm so lost. So we're getting C.C. for sure? I'm too excited to make sense of what I am reading. It's all a blur.

The injunction would basically nullify the current UUW AUUW statute leaving us with 2 things.
1 the possibility of carry.
2 a major leverage point for legislation.

The joyous thing is that in order to make corrections to the UUW it will require a super-majority. This time the advantage going to the down staters who may as well dig in their heals as chicago has done so many times.

In football terms - this is basically a safety. We've tackled them in the end zone, and we're waiting on the punt. Hopefully this leads to a touchdown. Maybe we'll get concealed carry before WI after all LOL...

[colt-45]

pyre400, on 08 July 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

Reggie, on 08 July 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

I'm so lost. So we're getting C.C. for sure? I'm too excited to make sense of what I am reading. It's all a blur.

The injunction would basically nullify the current UUW AUUW statute leaving us with 2 things.
1 the possibility of carry.
2 a major leverage point for legislation.

The joyous thing is that in order to make corrections to the UUW it will require a super-majority. This time the advantage going to the down staters who may as well dig in their heals as chicago has done so many times.

In football terms - this is basically a safety. We've tackled them in the end zone, and we're waiting on the punt. Hopefully this leads to a touchdown. Maybe we'll get concealed carry before WI after all LOL...

i think it's a big potability that we will have concealed carry before WI.

[Reggie]

[quote name='pyre400' date='08 July 2011 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1310182196' post='281532']
[quote name='Reggie' date='08 July 2011 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1310179301' post='281519']
I'm so lost. So we're getting C.C. for sure? I'm too excited to make sense of what I am reading. It's all a blur.
[/quote]

The injunction would basically nullify the current UUW AUUW statute leaving us with 2 things.
1 the possibility of carry.
2 a major leverage point for legislation.

The joyous thing is that in order to make corrections to the UUW it will require a super-majority. This time the advantage going to the down staters who may as well dig in their heals as chicago has done so many times.

In football terms - this is basically a safety. We've tackled them in the end zone, and we're waiting on the punt. Hopefully this leads to a touchdown. Maybe we'll get concealed carry before WI after all LOL...
[/quote]
Got ya!

[quote name='colt-45' date='08 July 2011 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1310182457' post='281534']
[quote name='pyre400' date='08 July 2011 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1310182196' post='281532']
[quote name='Reggie' date='08 July 2011 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1310179301' post='281519']
I'm so lost. So we're getting C.C. for sure? I'm too excited to make sense of what I am reading. It's all a blur.
[/quote]

The injunction would basically nullify the current UUW AUUW statute leaving us with 2 things.
1 the possibility of carry.
2 a major leverage point for legislation.

The joyous thing is that in order to make corrections to the UUW it will require a super-majority. This time the advantage going to the down staters who may as well dig in their heals as chicago has done so many times.

In football terms - this is basically a safety. We've tackled them in the end zone, and we're waiting on the punt. Hopefully this leads to a touchdown. Maybe we'll get concealed carry before WI after all LOL...
[/quote]
i think it's a big potability that we will have concealed carry before WI.
[/quote]
That would be incredible.

[xmikex]

It's so encouraging to see judges referring to 1st amendment restrictions and comparing them to the 2nd amendment.  

It's a great day for the Bill of Rights.