Without specific reference to the rest of the postings here, here is what I'm basically seeing:
"We need to be able to insist on carry without a license and go "constitutional carry"."
I'm sorry, folks, but that's not how this works.
Silveira: Second Amendment Suicide
Specifically: I have been involved in litigating AW cases; half a dozen in California and individual cases in Colorado and Connecticut. Every one has been an utter disaster. Unlike California, Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio and Oregon used to have right to arms clauses in their state Constitutions. Unlike the phony controversy about the federal Second Amendment, these state right to arms clauses clearly did guarantee an individual right. But in each of those states AW bans were enacted by state or local law and well-meaning lawyers (including me) challenged those AW bans under the clear state constitutional right clauses. Because the clauses were so clear the judges were faced with a clear choice: they could either hold that AWs are constitutionally protected or they could read the right to arms clauses out of the state constitution. And that is what they did. The people of Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio and Oregon still have their state constitutional right to arms, of course " but only as long as no legislative body seeks to ban and confiscate their guns. If a ban is passed as to any kind of gun in Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio and Oregon the likely result of any constitutional attack on that ban is that it will be upheld on the same false reasoning that was used to uphold the AW bans.
Please read the above link and attempt to understand what Don Kates is trying to say here. Kates is literally the modern "grandfather" of the gun rights movement, ignore him at your own peril.
Doing things out of turn is a very significant risk to the gun rights legal movement. If there is a Legislative solution possible that involves full preemption, but requires fees and backgrounds and training (which offends many a purist, like myself), then it should be taken.
Why? Because you will not be able to litigate the fees/training requirements in either the state court system or the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a better idea to file something like that in Texas, where the 5th Circuit is and which is friendlier territory to us than the 7th or state court. You will not be able to challenge the UUW statute in the federal court system in the 7th Circuit.
Todd believes we can get right to carry reform passed or at least have a good chance at it. Abolt agrees with this contention too. Let's support them and get the job done, and let me also point out that these bills are "filler" for something better.
Heller and McDonald are not the end all to be all cases for the 2A. We need further cases, but you should understand that not everything that's badly effecting Illinois gun owners should always be litigated in Illinois. This is not true, Given Chief Judge Easterbrook's influence....