128 replies to this topic

[defaultdotxbe]

Talonap, on 13 May 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Just asking... Why do people always bring up Heller an Mcdonald when they talk about carrying a concealed weapon? The two cases actually had nothing to do with carrying outside the home.

McDonald ruled the the 2nd amendment applies to state law as well as federal and that it is an individual (not collective) right, and overturned laws related to the "keep" portion, this is now asking for a ruling on the "bear" portion

[Uncle Harley]

I dont think it's the same mike moore   The one from here that is the Utah instructor is from way up north not champaigne

[ike]

SAF wins and at this point in time ,that's what matters.

[USArmyRet]

Uncle Harley, on 13 May 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 13 May 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

Excuse me if i dont't jump up and down.

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are,  but their only  answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

no offense brother,   but I don't think to many people will care about that.  They want to see Action.  I uderstand the percieved concept that we need to be hush hush,  but I feel that if we cant challenge the anti's face to face on merits and make a reasonable argument then we probably dont have a leg to stand on to begin with.   Granted I haven't been here long  but  it gets old quick being treated like a mushroom and being fed you know what and kept in the dark.  All the while the Anti's are plastering on their websites.  THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO HELP US  We will never get a concert effort untill we are all on the same page information wise.   It is my opinon  ( read that Harley thinks)  we need to lay it all out on the table  so we can see where we are weak and get people to beat feet in those areas.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

[Talonap]

Uncle Harley, on 13 May 2011 - 09:33 AM, said:

Talonap, on 13 May 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Just asking... Why do people always bring up Heller an Mcdonald when they talk about carrying a concealed weapon? The two cases actually had nothing to do with carrying outside the home.

the way I understand it,  is  it showed that it is an individual right, and not just a law enforcement or military right.  At the time of those cases they were against the infringement of a completle gun ban and those particular people wanted to protect their own homes. ( not that they don't want cc, but we have to crawl before we walk, walk before we run)   The crawling part is over  we proved it's a personal right.   We are one court case away where a homeless man  wants the same right as a home owner to protect themselves from having some sort of carry made legal from the supreme court.

Sounds about right, but you kind of made the point I was getting at. I agree that the 2nd means "Keep and bear", but apparently the powers that be need the SCOTUS to say so before they beleive it.    Baby steps are certainly the way to go, but neither Heller nor McDonald said anything about concealed carry specifically being a fundamental right as well as the "keeping" part. Does that make any sense???

[USArmyRet]

Having membership and contibutions in the NRA and the ISRA and I will now do the same with SAF. It's their turn IMO and the right way to deal with Chicago for my Rights. The others have had their chance and now it's time to let someone else go the route to our Independence from Chicago. NOW, if the others had decided to go that court route I would have done the same for them but...................... many are tired of the wishy-washy playing politics with Chicago.

[Jeckler]

oneshot, on 13 May 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

So Springfield, what's this gonna cost ya to defend?  Hmm?

Cost to Springfield...nothing.  Cost to you and I...higher taxes.
It's your tax dollars that are going to fund the defense.  
It's your donations that are going to fund the plaintiff.

Looks like it's going to be an expensive summer.

[USArmyRet]

Jeckler, on 13 May 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

oneshot, on 13 May 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

So Springfield, what's this gonna cost ya to defend?  Hmm?

Cost to Springfield...nothing.  Cost to you and I...higher taxes.
It's your tax dollars that are going to fund the defense.  
It's your donations that are going to fund the plaintiff.

Looks like it's going to be an expensive summer.

What else is new? Bring it all on.

[milq]

Being unfamiliar with the case and their plaintiffs at this point, my concern is that they could jump in with a weak case that gets knocked down and establishes something that will be even harder to overcome.

[Xwing]

We are all allies here!  Everyone appreciates Todd's and Molly's (and the countless others who are leading this fight) work, and what has been accomplished so far.  (I, for one, certainly do.)  SAF's lawsuit doesn't take away from that in any way.  We can have a multi-pronged approach, and have allies with various approaches too.  Anything that advances our right, and has a chance of helping CCW in Illinois is a good thing!  



The closer that various pro-2a groups can work together and communicate, the better.  But regardless, the more forces pushing for this in various ways, the better our chances.  Todd, I don't know if the SAF reached out to the NRA at all before filing the suit today.  But if not, hopefully you plan to reach out to them to coordinate attacks and help cohesiveness.  I understand that there is often disagreement on the "best way" to approach regaining our 2^nd amendment rights.  But I think we all have the capacity to rise above the disagreements and continue pushing.

[milq]

Well said Xwing!

Perhaps the pressure from this suit being filed can help if Rep. Phelps calls HB148 up for a vote again.

[Uncle Harley]

Xwing, on 13 May 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

We are all allies here!  Everyone appreciates Todd's and Molly's (and the countless others who are leading this fight) work, and what has been accomplished so far.  (I, for one, certainly do.)  SAF's lawsuit doesn't take away from that in any way.  We can have a multi-pronged approach, and have allies with various approaches too.  Anything that advances our right, and has a chance of helping CCW in Illinois is a good thing!  



The closer that various pro-2a groups can work together and communicate, the better.  But regardless, the more forces pushing for this in various ways, the better our chances.  Todd, I don't know if the SAF reached out to the NRA at all before filing the suit today.  But if not, hopefully you plan to reach out to them to coordinate attacks and help cohesiveness.  I understand that there is often disagreement on the "best way" to approach regaining our 2^nd amendment rights.  But I think we all have the capacity to rise above the disagreements and continue pushing.

I know I;ve sounded a bit *itchy but I wanted to state for the record  I do think Todd and Molly have done a great job, I just wish we werent so much in the dark.  Especially now that cat is out of the bag and  we have seen who voted for what.

[mrmagloo]

While I can't thank Todd, Molly Phelps, and all of the tireless HB0148 supporters in the trenches, the fact is, it failed. Many folks including myself, reached out many times to our legislators, even those in other regions, and we gave it all we had. While that was certainly just another battle, and the war is far from over, I perceive the SAF as an Ally.

I can understand to a certain point Todd's feelings about SAF, the fact is, even he has said NOW is the time to litigate this thing. I know they might not have helped much with HB0148, they have obviously are taking the initiative on the litigation, so my personal thinking is, let's set personal pride to the side, and work together.

Is there anything wrong with the ISRA, NRA, and Illinois Carry reaching out to them and trying to develop a consortum on this thing?  I mean aren't we all on the same side here??  I just don't think it's fair to suggest they are trying to steal anything from anyone, and I feel that thinking is counter productive.

I say, let's get the biggest alliance together and win this thing for everyones benefit!

My .02 fwiw.

[Skorpius]

They need to sue Chicago over the registration, permit, and fees!

[snubjob]

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

I wonder if this will light a fire under the holdout 'No' votes...

It won't affect those "no" votes or the "fence sitters" one bit! They have NO problem wasting our tax money on matters like this!!!

[oneshot]

abolt243, on 13 May 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

I also wonder if the Chicago media will able to ignore this...

Btw, lol, Daley's head just exploded.

How appropriate, filed on the last day of Daley's reign.

Look out Rahm baby, here we come!!!!

AB

We're going rahm RTC up your...BLEEP!!!  

[Bud]

snubjob, on 13 May 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

I wonder if this will light a fire under the holdout 'No' votes...

It won't affect those "no" votes or the "fence sitters" one bit! They have NO problem wasting our tax money on matters like this!!!

I think what would be better all around is for the ISRA and the NRA to jump in with the Second Amendment Foundation and strengthen the law suit. That's what happenwith MacDonald, the NRA did jump in help when the suit reached the Supreme Court.

Getting Gura involved would be the best possible tactic.

Don't let this thread dissolve into another fight.

The only fight should be directed at getting this done.

I have already donated to Illinois Carry, the ISRA and trhe NRA and now I have donated to SAF.

[JR1987]

BudMan5, on 13 May 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

snubjob, on 13 May 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

I wonder if this will light a fire under the holdout 'No' votes...

It won't affect those "no" votes or the "fence sitters" one bit! They have NO problem wasting our tax money on matters like this!!!

I think what would be better all around is for the ISRA and the NRA to jump in with the Second Amendment Foundation and strengthen the law suit. That's what happenwith MacDonald, the NRA did jump in help when the suit reached the Supreme Court.

Getting Gura involved would be the best possible tactic.

Don't let this thread dissolve into another fight.

The only fight should be directed at getting this done.

I have already donated to Illinois Carry, the ISRA and trhe NRA and now I have donated to SAF.

I agree 100%, a unified front is necessary. A large group of people stand behind one banner demanding their rights is more effective.

Divide and conquer works well, it works even better when you don't have to divide your enemy yourself.

Let's not divide ourselves here.

[oneshot]

Jeckler, on 13 May 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

oneshot, on 13 May 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

So Springfield, what's this gonna cost ya to defend?  Hmm?

Cost to Springfield...nothing.  Cost to you and I...higher taxes.
It's your tax dollars that are going to fund the defense.  
It's your donations that are going to fund the plaintiff.

Looks like it's going to be an expensive summer.

They've already raised our taxes, they aren't going to change, it's just going to squeeze them on their wish lists.

[oneshot]

[quote name='JR1987' date='13 May 2011 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1305306934' post='271491']
[quote name='BudMan5' date='13 May 2011 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1305306500' post='271487']
[quote name='snubjob' date='13 May 2011 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1305305562' post='271482']
[quote name='05FLHT' date='13 May 2011 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1305297266' post='271404']
I wonder if this will light a fire under the holdout 'No' votes...
[/quote]
It won't affect those "no" votes or the "fence sitters" one bit! They have NO problem wasting our tax money on matters like this!!!
[/quote]

I think what would be better all around is for the ISRA and the NRA to jump in with the Second Amendment Foundation and strengthen the law suit. That's what happenwith MacDonald, the NRA did jump in help when the suit reached the Supreme Court.

Getting Gura involved would be the best possible tactic.

Don't let this thread dissolve into another fight.

The only fight should be directed at getting this done.

I have already donated to Illinois Carry, the ISRA and trhe NRA and now I have donated to SAF.
[/quote]

I agree 100%, a unified front is necessary. A large group of people stand behind one banner demanding their rights is more effective.

Divide and conquer works well, it works even better when you don't have to divide your enemy yourself.

Let's not divide ourselves here.
[/quote]

Fighting isn't going to change anything anyway, SAF isn't going to pull their suit because of it.  I'd much rather have Illinois spend my tax dollars defending a suit that will bring about the recognition of my rights than the other crap that they throw it away on.

[JR1987]

Of course they wouldn't, but having the many gun rights organizations of Illinois standing behind the suit, with the countless hours of work they have done, and the supporters they have will help send a message.

We want our rights, we are serious about getting them, and we will get them come hell or high water.

I am speaking more politically than legally here. I think if the people of Illinois on the fence or indifferent see how big this group really is, it will change a lot of minds.

[kurt555gs]

Now would be a good time for Todd & Company to roll out a reasonable law to replace both UUW & AUUW. Save the state some money.

Sent from ......

[CCR74]

Pressure, pressure, and more pressure.  I understand Todd's position and I'm grateful for all he's done to advance the cause, but I'm going to cheer any effort to put pressure on our legislators - SAF included.  Just because they weren't around for other aspects of the fight doesn't mean they aren't entitled to make challenges on their own in any way they see fit.

[Mr. Fife]

Uncle Harley, on 13 May 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

I dont think it's the same mike moore   The one from here that is the Utah instructor is from way up north not champaigne

I think you are right. The lawsuit can  be viewed on the SAF site in a PDF. It says Moore is in his 60's. The good looking kid (no offense) who visits us here doesn't look a day over 25, if that's his real picture.

[w00dc4ip]

Tvandermyde, on 13 May 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

Excuse me if i dont't jump up and down.

Once again SAF is being a show horse. The did nothing to help in the legislature. They simply ride in at the last minute to try and grab all the headlines they can. Trying to lookmlike tgey are doing someing. Gura won Heller and McDonald and set us on the path that we are,  but their only  answer is litigation and i don't alway think it's smart litigation.

While ISRA, NRA Illinois Carry have been working in the trenches, SAF shows up and i can see the fundraisng letters in the mail now.

Todd,
First of all, thank you for all the work you've done on HB148, and everything else you've done that most of us don't even have the slightest clue about.  That said, as a lot of people here said when 148 missed, the groups that were working on 148 should have had the law suit ready to file the day after the vote.  I'm happy it's SAF as opposed to Joe Lawyer who has no experience.  If NRA / ISRA / ILCarry has a suit lined up, why not file it now and they'll probably get joined with the SAF suit at the Appellate level like Heller did.

[Mr. Fife]

I see no reason why all can't join forces and get behind this. If we win, I'm not less grateful to the folks who paved the way, and I'm still going to buy Todd his Heinekens when we get together to cheer our victory.

I would be more disappointed if Illinois Carry, the NRA, ISRA, and all the other pro gun websites and organizations decided to not offer their assistance to help get 'er done.

I expect there will be lots of heroes in this never ending fight for decades to come. I salute all of them.

[JR1987]

Have any ISRA members contacted them yet asking them where they stand on this?

[05FLHT]

milq, on 13 May 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

Being unfamiliar with the case and their plaintiffs at this point, my concern is that they could jump in with a weak case that gets knocked down and establishes something that will be even harder to overcome.

I have the utmost faith the SAF had this planned. They do not bring poor cases forward.

[oneshot]

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

milq, on 13 May 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

Being unfamiliar with the case and their plaintiffs at this point, my concern is that they could jump in with a weak case that gets knocked down and establishes something that will be even harder to overcome.

I have the utmost faith the SAF had this planned. They do not bring poor cases forward.

Yes, being that they are the ones filing, it gives me greater confidence.

[abolt243]

Talonap, on 13 May 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Just asking... Why do people always bring up Heller an Mcdonald when they talk about carrying a concealed weapon? The two cases actually had nothing to do with carrying outside the home.

Au Contraire mon ami'.  You've been listening to the opposition too long.  Heller states, Section 1, "Operative Clause" paragraph c., page 19 in my copy:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of

these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee

the individual right to possess and carry weapons in

case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed

by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

We look to this because it has always been widely understood

that the Second Amendment, like the First and

Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The

very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes

the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it

"shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v.

Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right

granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner

dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The

Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed

It gives the INDIVIDUAL right to Possess and Carry in case of confrontation.  The antis pick out this section:  Syllabus, Section 1.:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

They conveniently forget to read the words, "such as" and "lawful purposes".  

McDonald simply applied the Second to the States.   Heller most definitely says that we, as individuals, have the inalienable right, confirmed by the Constitution to possess and carry a weapon in case of confrontation.  NOT limited to the home.  It does leave the door open to "some" restrictions as to "sensitive places" etc, but says that total bans are unconstitutional.  One mistake that was made in the Heller case was making the plea specific to the home.  But sometimes that's done intentionally to gain the court's favor, and then addressed further in another case.