Jump to content


Photo

Shall Issue / Preemption


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 AuroraInstructor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,180 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 13

Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:11 AM

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?

http://IllinoisGunPros.com
http://facebook.com/...ealedCarryClass
State Certified Concealed Carry Trainer / NRA Certified Instructor


#2 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 13,357 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 02 February 2019 - 01:17 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.

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. 


#3 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,258 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 01:21 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


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#4 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,417 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 02:29 PM

They were already pushing to eliminate preemption last session, expect that to come back up this session. 



#5 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,576 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 02 February 2019 - 02:49 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
Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#6 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,258 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 02 February 2019 - 03:05 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)


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#7 transplant

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,589 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 03 February 2019 - 02:18 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.

#8 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 03 February 2019 - 03:56 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 Tapatalk

The money has nothing to do with it.



#9 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 04 February 2019 - 12:25 PM

Because...making sure the most law-abiding segment of society can't carry guns will most certainly reduce crime! LMFAO.



#10 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 04 February 2019 - 01:09 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.


Ad utrumque paratus


#11 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 05 February 2019 - 08:53 AM

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.



#12 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,307 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 05 February 2019 - 11:10 AM

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.



#13 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 05 February 2019 - 11:22 AM

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.


Ad utrumque paratus


#14 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 05 February 2019 - 12:14 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.



#15 madcow1007

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 14

Posted 11 February 2019 - 07:23 AM

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.

#16 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,499 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:11 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.



#17 madcow1007

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 14

Posted 11 February 2019 - 08:42 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.

They do generally have pretty narrow rulings, but not always.

#18 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,393 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 12 February 2019 - 12:10 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.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users