128 replies to this topic

[mauserme]

Referring again to Todd's Litigation Update thread, he said

Quote

...Molly has been working diligently with me to line up a UUW case. It is in the works and we think we have an outstanding case to bring. We are lining up a few more details and Dawson not going higher helps us lay the ground work for some really good facts. W'ee let you know when it's filed.

That says to me there is/was an NRA suit being developed. While I'm elated that the SAF filed, I also understand his position if his post was about what will now become a second law suit.

[05FLHT]

Talonap, on 13 May 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

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???

The court ruled in Heller that the 2A, the right to 'keep and bear,' is an individual right. The court ruled in McDonald that the 2A is enforceable agains State and local governments. To us this means the individual right to keep AND BEAR arms, for the fundamental right of self defense, is enforceable against the State of Illinois.

A complete prohibition of the right to bear arms for self defense will not pass muster and it looks like the ILGA just shot itself in the foot by not passing concealed carry. Based on the cases cited by the SCOTUS, prohibiting concealed carry only passes muster when open carry is lawful...

The State turned down mandatory training, showing proficiency, requiring fingerprinting and background checks, and...getting the ISP more staff and a state of the art computer system, on the gun owners dime. Big mistake.

[JR1987]

It was summed up nicely at the end of the debates.

This is coming, we can make it easy or you can take it hard. Your choice.

Looks like IL's anti gun lobby is going to get it hard.

[Satatic]

Since this is vs the state and not vs chicago are they really going to dump a lot of money into defending it?

[mauserme]

It will be interesting to see if Illinois has the political will to spend money it doesn't have defending this.

[JR1987]

mauserme, on 13 May 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

It will be interesting to see if Illinois has the political will to spend money it doesn't have defending this.

Please, IL will spend money they don't have until the last shovel of dirty is dropped.

[lockman]

Is the plaintiff the same one posting on this forum or did the big liberal Hollywood hound has a major shift in his philosophy?

[mauserme]

Quote

Please, IL will spend money they don't have until the last shovel of dirty is dropped.

There' a cheaper solution if they have the wisdom to accept it.  Wouldn't cost another dime, really.

[snubjob]

Satatic, on 13 May 2011 - 12:36 PM, said:

Since this is vs the state and not vs chicago are they really going to dump a lot of money into defending it?

Since all the decisions regarding this"state" come from the leaders in Chicago, YES they ARE going to dump LOTS of money into fighting it!

[JR1987]

mauserme, on 13 May 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

There' a cheaper solution if they have the wisdom to accept it.  Wouldn't cost another dime, really.

Of course there is, but it is Illinois we are talking about boss. You really think logic will overpower ignorance?

I mean... everywhere else it might... but this is Illinois.

[mauserme]

JR1987, on 13 May 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

mauserme, on 13 May 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

There' a cheaper solution if they have the wisdom to accept it.  Wouldn't cost another dime, really.

Of course there is, but it is Illinois we are talking about boss. You really think logic will overpower ignorance?

I mean... everywhere else it might... but this is Illinois.

I know what you're saying but, hey, it ain't on postponed consideration for nothing.  If they still have an opportunity and still want to walk away from it, it will look that much worse for them eventually.

[JR1987]

That's what I'm hoping.

Side note I wrote the ISRA. I love how fast they respond. I wish they had a payment plan for lifetime membership like the NRA had. I'd do that. This was the response I received:

Quote

Good afternoon John,

We've always been supporters of SAF and we wish them luck in their latest
action on behalf of Illinois firearm owners.  That said, ISRA is not a party
to this suit, we will be taking another path.

Watch for an ISRA alert in the next couple days to explain more.

Respectfully,


Don Moran
President
Illinois State Rifle Association

I am confident that they will take the proper path, and I look forward to an alert soon.

I like that we are hitting them on all fronts, I just want the lobby as a whole to be united in its approach. Keep offering the legislative outlet, put legal pressure on them, and keep the letters coming.

[GarandFan]

Link to complaint.

http://saf.org/legal...ILcomplaint.pdf

I am sure the state will first attempt to deny the plaintiff's standing.

[mauserme]

JR1987, on 13 May 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Quote

Good afternoon John,

We've always been supporters of SAF and we wish them luck in their latest
action on behalf of Illinois firearm owners.  That said, ISRA is not a party
to this suit, we will be taking another path.

Watch for an ISRA alert in the next couple days to explain more.

Respectfully,


Don Moran
President
Illinois State Rifle Association

And now the second shoe drops.  Or is it the third?

[JR1987]

mauserme, on 13 May 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

JR1987, on 13 May 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Quote

Good afternoon John,

We've always been supporters of SAF and we wish them luck in their latest
action on behalf of Illinois firearm owners.  That said, ISRA is not a party
to this suit, we will be taking another path.

Watch for an ISRA alert in the next couple days to explain more.

Respectfully,


Don Moran
President
Illinois State Rifle Association

And now the second shoe drops.  Or is it the third?

Forgive the ignorance, but I don't get it?

[mauserme]

Read my post #61 - I think there are 2 law suits.

[JR1987]

mauserme, on 13 May 2011 - 12:58 PM, said:

Read my post #61 - I think there are 2 law suits.

Got ya. I looked up the reference too, as I was unaware of what it was.

Apparently related to apartment living and waiting for the guy above your apartment to drop his other shoe before getting in to bed.

[mauserme]

I didn't know about that apartment thing.  I was thinking more like bugs getting squished.

[JR1987]

mauserme, on 13 May 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

I didn't know about that apartment thing.  I was thinking more like bugs getting squished.

Yes, off topic, but apparently:

1. You sit on your bed getting ready to take your shoes off, picturing the person in the above apartment doing the same mundane task.

2. You hear the one shoe drop, and you are waiting for the second.

At least that's what the internetz told me.

[Gray Peterson]

All,

This isn't the first time that SAF and an NRA affiliate went on divergent paths.  In California, we had a damnable law call AB962 which would have banned mail order ammo.  Three lawsuits were filed:  One by state ammunition, one by CGF/SAF/NRA (both in federal court) and one by the CRPA Found
ation in state court.  The CRPA case succeeded in state court.

Gray

[oneshot]

Maybe it would be a good time to write to those No's on 148 and explain that maybe they'd be better off taking 148, it could come down that we wind up with an even freer carry situation in Illinois?    Furthermore, think of the implications on the budget and the programs that the Dems so love, and the constituents who depend on them.  Is the prohibition on carry really so cherished to them as to further threaten funding to social welfare programs?  We don't want to leave anyone out in the .  Do it for the children.

[RandyP]

I applaud the efforts of any and all organizations that are willing to file suits to help us reclaim our Rights in this Nanny State.

IMHO the more the merrier and better our chances for 'something' good succeeding. I fully acknowledge my sincere appreciation of all the dilgent hard work done by Todd, Molly and the many others who valiantly tried their best but in the end did not triumph on our behalf with HB148. I view the SAF's new attempt as a positive to the cause and fully support it as well.

All of us ultimately want the same thing, the recognition of the 2nd Amendment and our Right to keep and bear arms in the sole holdout State, Illinois. Whatever group or whichever person or persons ends up getting it for us all has earned and deserves our respect and gratitude.

[SAF]

Hello everyone and thank you for your support!

We just wanted to jump in with two responses to issues posed here:

1. Regarding lobbying: SAF is a 501©3 non-profit.  As such, IRS regulations prohibit us from engaging in lobbying or taking a position on legislation and it is not within our mission.  There are many great organizations engaged in that side of the gun rights battle, but despite the wishes of many we simply cannot enter that field.

2. Regarding NRA:  Our attorneys spent many hours talking with NRA in recent days.

For those that haven't seen it yet, here is a copy of the complaint:  http://saf.org/legal...ILcomplaint.pdf

[ming]

oneshot, on 13 May 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

...  Do it for the children.

Yes, after all it is a "common sense" concealed carry bill.  

[Bud]

RandyP, on 13 May 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

I applaud the efforts of any and all organizations that are willing to file suits to help us reclaim our Rights in this Nanny State.

IMHO the more the merrier and better our chances for 'something' good succeeding. I fully acknowledge my sincere appreciation of all the dilgent hard work done by Todd, Molly and the many others who valiantly tried their best but in the end did not triumph on our behalf with HB148. I view the SAF's new attempt as a positive to the cause and fully support it as well.

All of us ultimately want the same thing, the recognition of the 2nd Amendment and our Right to keep and bear arms in the sole holdout State, Illinois. Whatever group or whichever person or persons ends up getting it for us all has earned and deserves our respect and gratitude.

I try to look at everything near term (say in the next couple of weeks) short term (the next couple of months) and long term (the next five years)

In the near term, the SAF lawsuit may cause the ILGA to radivcally change their minds. We need to get the word out to all of the "no" votes that we are looking for the Court to decide that any Illinois resident who holds an FOID has already qualified to carry a concealed weapon and his/her FOID is in fact, a concealed carry permit. Is that possible? Beats me but I would love to get that dialogue started on the floor of the House and watch the consternation of all the "no" voters. Also that the only way to prevent the Court from maj=king that very decision is to immediately pass HB 148 because at least then, the State would still have some control.

In the short term, the Court may move the case along vey quickly. The initial presentation and resultab=nt decsion could come before the end of the year and it is entirely possible that the District Court will rule in favor of the defendents in time for the veto session next fall. That too, will bring a huge amount of pressure on the House to do something! Prevent just anyone from carrying a gun by enacting a shall issue permit system!

And in the long term the pending case against Maryland gets cert by SCOTUS and we get a favorable ruling by SCOTUS by next June.

If you look at everything going on, we should all be sitting in our rocking chairs with a cold adult libation and grinning............shark like.

[Mr. Fife]

Lively discussion on Capital Fax

[Jeff Johnson]

Hey SAF! Welcome to the forum! I personally don't care how many pro gun lawsuits are filed against Illinois on our behalf, as long as "we" win some ground.
Let us know how we can help.

[masconfusion]

Second distinct suit of the day.  This one is NRA based.

See this thread...  http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=26132

[ike]

I like the idea of a FOID card being a ccw permit.Since I have a FOID card ,a PA permit a HAzmat endorsement from TSA and waiting on my UTAH permit, I'm kinda  feel permitted out.I mean  what more do we need to prove to the state ?

[JR1987]

ike, on 13 May 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

I like the idea of a FOID card being a ccw permit.Since I have a FOID card ,a PA permit a HAzmat endorsement from TSA and waiting on my UTAH permit, I'm kinda  feel permitted out.I mean  what more do we need to prove to the state ?

You got a Hazmat?

PM sent so I don't hijack the topic.