80 replies to this topic

[gravyboy77]

Tvandermyde, on 13 May 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

I would like to thank Valinda for her help in bringing Mary to us and helping get this off the ground. She has been a very big help and made this much easier.

We started on this last year, and was part of an overall strategy in how we would approach this issue. While I do not get to control all the decisions, timing and logistics, I have had imput on making this happen.

But Valinda and MAry Shepard made it a lot easier on me. Thank you both.

Nice job Todd!! I'm glad the NRA is suing.

[Sigma]

lieut89, on 13 May 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

This is great news! And I am also happy that there are suits coming from multiple fronts. I have, and will be donating to all entities involved in the two suits filed today. Not knowing much about the plaintiffs of the SAF filed suit however, the bulk of my available funds will be directed toward the NRA. I don't have a lot to give, but I will give what I can.

Yes donating is a must. we have to fund them but there are other ways that we can make sure SAF and NRA are funded.
For example. The NRA has a toolbar that you can download. With this toolbar NRA makes money from websites that you visit.
Click here for toolbar download.

SAF has a web thingy that generates funds for them when you buy items from Amazon.
Click here for SAF online store.

These amounts are minimal but every penny counts. I would love both to see their membership increase by 2000 by the end of this lawsuit.

[USArmyRet]

BudMan5, on 13 May 2011 - 03:34 PM, said:

[/u][/b]I am not a recipient of any of this monety

If that is true, then where has all the money come from for that holster collection you have?      Actually I'm waiting now to see who else jumps on board. I'm on a fixed income so my extra pennys for donations are limitied on a monthly basis.

[USArmyRet]

Sigma, on 13 May 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

lieut89, on 13 May 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

This is great news! And I am also happy that there are suits coming from multiple fronts. I have, and will be donating to all entities involved in the two suits filed today. Not knowing much about the plaintiffs of the SAF filed suit however, the bulk of my available funds will be directed toward the NRA. I don't have a lot to give, but I will give what I can.

Yes donating is a must. we have to fund them but there are other ways that we can make sure SAF and NRA are funded.
For example. The NRA has a toolbar that you can download. With this toolbar NRA makes money from websites that you visit.
Click here for toolbar download.

SAF has a web thingy that generates funds for them when you buy items from Amazon.
Click here for SAF online store.

These amounts are minimal but every penny counts. I would love both to see their membership increase by 2000 by the end of this lawsuit.

I'm now and have been doing Credit Card charges on my new NRA Platimum Card instead of others. I've been buying the hell out of Browning BDA's and 380 ammo.  

[abolt243]

Notice in Todd's post, this case had it's beginnings over a year ago.  These things don't just jump up in one day, and I'm sure the SAF has been planning theirs for a while too.  So, remember the day of the vote, and everyone was jumping up and down hollering for litigation!??  It was in the works and Todd and Molly couldn't say anything about it!!  Although Todd insinuated rather strongly I think that there was a suit coming, some didn't pick up on it and kept right on hollering about it.  As Molly has said, we (the pro gun groups in this state) are working on three fronts, legislative, judicial and educational.  And they're all going on at the same time and they're all working.

Now, to help the legislature alleviate their embarrassment at not passing HB148 and to help save the state a little money, I would offer this amendment to HB 148.  To any legislators that are reading here, feel free to take this and use it as your own.  As Rep Phelps said, we can do it easy or we can do it hard.

Amend 720 ILCS 5/23-1 with the following:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

    Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

            (i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state; or

            (ii) are not immediately accessible; or

            (iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;


Engrossed:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

    Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

*******************

We can throw in a quick line about our visitors from out of state.  The state of Illinois recognizes any valid permit to carry a firearm issued by any other state.

That'll keep us from having to amend the law when Thune passes.

[papa]

abolt243, on 13 May 2011 - 04:15 PM, said:

Notice in Todd's post, this case had it's beginnings over a year ago. These things don't just jump up in one day, and I'm sure the SAF has been planning theirs for a while too. So, remember the day of the vote, and everyone was jumping up and down hollering for litigation!?? It was in the works and Todd and Molly couldn't say anything about it!! Although Todd insinuated rather strongly I think that there was a suit coming, some didn't pick up on it and kept right on hollering about it. As Molly has said, we (the pro gun groups in this state) are working on three fronts, legislative, judicial and educational. And they're all going on at the same time and they're all working.

Now, to help the legislature alleviate their embarrassment at not passing HB148 and to help save the state a little money, I would offer this amendment to HB 148. To any legislators that are reading here, feel free to take this and use it as your own. As Rep Phelps said, we can do it easy or we can do it hard.

Amend 720 ILCS 5/23-1 with the following:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state; or

(ii) are not immediately accessible; or

(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;


Engrossed:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

*******************

We can throw in a quick line about our visitors from out of state. The state of Illinois recognizes any valid permit to carry a firearm issued by any other state.

That'll keep us from having to amend the law when Thune passes.

Sounds good to me.

[lieut89]

poifect abolt!

[drdoom]

Why bother at this point, it's time to trounce the opposition and get bigger gains.

[USArmyRet]

abolt243, on 13 May 2011 - 04:15 PM, said:

Notice in Todd's post, this case had it's beginnings over a year ago.  These things don't just jump up in one day, and I'm sure the SAF has been planning theirs for a while too.  So, remember the day of the vote, and everyone was jumping up and down hollering for litigation!??  It was in the works and Todd and Molly couldn't say anything about it!!  Although Todd insinuated rather strongly I think that there was a suit coming, some didn't pick up on it and kept right on hollering about it.  As Molly has said, we (the pro gun groups in this state) are working on three fronts, legislative, judicial and educational.  And they're all going on at the same time and they're all working.

Now, to help the legislature alleviate their embarrassment at not passing HB148 and to help save the state a little money, I would offer this amendment to HB 148.  To any legislators that are reading here, feel free to take this and use it as your own.  As Rep Phelps said, we can do it easy or we can do it hard.

Amend 720 ILCS 5/23-1 with the following:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

    Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

            (i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state; or

            (ii) are not immediately accessible; or

            (iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;


Engrossed:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

    Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

    (a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

*******************

We can throw in a quick line about our visitors from out of state.  The state of Illinois recognizes any valid permit to carry a firearm issued by any other state.

That'll keep us from having to amend the law when Thune passes.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

[SheepleNoMore]

Quinn hasn't changed, so House and Senate would have to override.  It seems that State has backed itself into a corner.  I'd love for the SCOTUS to tell IL that since it couldn't figure out a CCW law, it will choose by adopting one of ; Florida, Texas, Arizona, Utah, or Pennsylvania.  (I don't know how good they are, just that they have a large reciprocal factor with other States).

Stuff it all the way down their throat and don't give them a choice of seasonings to put on it.

[Bob1911]

ChicagoSigFan, on 13 May 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

I think that both the NRA and the SAF suits are great news.  I don't know how likely it is that the suits will cause votes in the ILGA to change, but, hey, we don't need all the NO votes to change - just a handful.
Even if the tally doesn't change, there is still the bright light of victory at the end of the tunnel - however many years it may take to reach.  

Kudos to the NRA, the SAF and their respective plaintiffs for keeping up the good fight.

The members of the ILGA had there chance to be a part of the process, even to the point of being begged. We have moved on!

If they are smart enough (doubtful)to see the writing on the wall, make THEM bring up HB0148. Let them remove the first amendment. (libraries)
Let them add reciprocity AND open carry! Let them allow "reasonable Training."

And last WE will decide if we like the results.

Did I mention that they had there chance for change?

Just my .02 FWIW (if anything)

[bob]

papa, on 13 May 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

abolt243, on 13 May 2011 - 04:15 PM, said:

Notice in Todd's post, this case had it's beginnings over a year ago. These things don't just jump up in one day, and I'm sure the SAF has been planning theirs for a while too. So, remember the day of the vote, and everyone was jumping up and down hollering for litigation!?? It was in the works and Todd and Molly couldn't say anything about it!! Although Todd insinuated rather strongly I think that there was a suit coming, some didn't pick up on it and kept right on hollering about it. As Molly has said, we (the pro gun groups in this state) are working on three fronts, legislative, judicial and educational. And they're all going on at the same time and they're all working.

Now, to help the legislature alleviate their embarrassment at not passing HB148 and to help save the state a little money, I would offer this amendment to HB 148. To any legislators that are reading here, feel free to take this and use it as your own. As Rep Phelps said, we can do it easy or we can do it hard.

Amend 720 ILCS 5/23-1 with the following:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:

(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state; or

(ii) are not immediately accessible; or

(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;


Engrossed:

(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)

Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

*******************

We can throw in a quick line about our visitors from out of state. The state of Illinois recognizes any valid permit to carry a firearm issued by any other state.

That'll keep us from having to amend the law when Thune passes.

Sounds good to me.

+1.

[USArmyRet]

The ISRA has joined the NRA.........


NRA & ISRA File Suit Against Illinois' Ban on Carrying Firearms for Self-Defense
  
Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is funding and supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. The case, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is Shepard v. Madigan. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her as co-plaintiff is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Mary Shepard is an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner with no criminal record, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in two other states. Because Illinois remains the only state that completely prohibits all law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home, Mary Shepard also became a crime victim. While working as the treasurer of her church, Mrs. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245-pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Mrs. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Mrs. Shepard’s injuries required extensive surgery and physical therapy.

“Mary Shepard isn't just a victim of the violent criminal who attacked her," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. "She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business. We're pleased that the legislature has come closer this year than ever before to changing the law, but close isn't good enough for Mary Shepard and the thousands of other Illinois residents who are prohibited by statute from defending themselves outside the home."

Because Illinois statutes prohibit the right to keep and bear arms and the ability to carry handguns in Illinois, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void.

Cox concluded: "In its historic Heller and McDonald decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Mary Shepard's story highlights the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. Whether through the legislature or through the courts, we won't rest until that happens."

[Xwing]

Great news to hear about this suit!  2 good suits in one day!

[lieut89]

Fox News Chicago appears to be the first to report locally. We'll see how long it takes for the other local outlets to report.

http://www.myfoxchic...eapons-20110513

[howie]

Abolt, PM sent

[Scots]

Thank you to everyone who made this happen. Clearly, Todd and Molly have had this in the works for quite some time. It will likely take some time, but it's great to see such much-needed steps come to fruition.

Here's to a light at the end of the tunnel!

[w00dc4ip]

My only hope is the IL legislators who were working with us on 148 don't jump in after the fact and try to pass a CHP type law once the UUW/AUUW statutes are thrown out by SCOTUS.  AT that point, they should say to the anti's, "well, you had your chance, we're not going to help you now that you don't like the outcome you created."

[bob]

w00dc4ip, on 13 May 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

My only hope is the IL legislators who were working with us on 148 don't jump in after the fact and try to pass a CHP type law once the UUW/AUUW statutes are thrown out by SCOTUS.  AT that point, they should say to the anti's, "well, you had your chance, we're not going to help you now that you don't like the outcome you created."

Maybe we should just go for broke.

Scrap the UUW laws entirely. The whole chapter can go in fact. It's rarely been used against real criminals. Mostly it is used against otherwise LACs. Just get rid of it (or most of it anyway).

Get rid of the long list of people whose life the state considers more valuable than mine. How about making it a life imprisonment w/o parole crime to murder any law abiding citizen? If it is a non-law abiding individual, only 20 years w/o parole.

Define sensitive places in no uncertain terms and provide for penalties for carrying in those places without specific authorization. Places like inside of prisons. It should be a short list.

Provide for penalties for posession by prohibited persons, and use federal law to define just who is prohibited. No reason to have our own definitions.

Amend the FOID card act to allow non-residents to acquire a FOID card (charge them $10 extra), and to consider a LTC issued by another state as satisfying the requirements to have a FOID card for all purposes as it pertains to non-residents.

[jobes]

Great job guys and gals! Daley would just toss big money fighting this like anything else. Well with Rahm at the helm he's looking at really cutting the budget/deficit (or so he says). Do you think this will impact they "normal" way Chicago would have fought this before compared to now?

[Mr. Fife]

Quote

She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business.

I wonder if after Mary wins her case,  can she sue all of the "no" voters in civil court for her damages?

[ishmo]

jobes, on 13 May 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

Great job guys and gals! Daley would just toss big money fighting this like anything else. Well with Rahm at the helm he's looking at really cutting the budget/deficit (or so he says). Do you think this will impact they "normal" way Chicago would have fought this before compared to now?

Since the suits don't specifically target Chicago/Cook I personally can't see them putting much if any money into these suits. They've got their own challenges to worry about and I doubt they have any spare cash laying around to waste on something they know is a lost cause. I do expect there will be a lot of ideas coming from the Chicago/Cook reps behind the scenes.

Whether HB148 gets called again before May 31 I don't know but imho if the state was smart they'd take the deal and cash on the table that HB 148 will generate while they have the chance. I doubt they will but stranger things have happened.

[Talonap]

Mr. Fife, on 13 May 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

Quote

She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business.

I wonder if after Mary wins her case,  can she sue all of the "no" voters in civil court for her damages?

Would be nice.... But they would probably lie and say, "I just voted the way my constituants would have wanted - had I asked them."

[bob]

ishmo, on 14 May 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

jobes, on 13 May 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

Great job guys and gals! Daley would just toss big money fighting this like anything else. Well with Rahm at the helm he's looking at really cutting the budget/deficit (or so he says). Do you think this will impact they "normal" way Chicago would have fought this before compared to now?

Since the suits don't specifically target Chicago/Cook I personally can't see them putting much if any money into these suits. They've got their own challenges to worry about and I doubt they have any spare cash laying around to waste on something they know is a lost cause. I do expect there will be a lot of ideas coming from the Chicago/Cook reps behind the scenes.

Whether HB148 gets called again before May 31 I don't know but imho if the state was smart they'd take the deal and cash on the table that HB 148 will generate while they have the chance. I doubt they will but stranger things have happened.

It remains to be seen just how much leverage the legal action gives us. These things are a big deal to us, but the antis might not give a hoot.

If it turns out they provide significant leverage, we should use it to our advantage.

I'd be willing to compromise at no fingerprints, lower cost, fewer prohibited spots.

I'd be willing to accept training requirements, but they should be something like FL's requirements on he safety side. If you are going to have a training requirement, having a standard section on the law as it applies in Illinois that HB148 had makes a lot of sense to me. That gives us a baseline for future court cases on just what the state is willing to admit the law actually says, instead of them lying about it as they do now and leaving you subject to arrest for fanny packing and other stuff the law clearly allows for but some cop does not approve of.

We should also use the opportunity to get full state wide preemption on firearms regulation. If we have to compromise in this area, allow certain kinds of gun regulations at the local level that only apply to local residents and can only be enacted at the county level and only by referendum. And at no cost to the gun owner. So if someone wants to register guns in Cook County, they have to get a referendum passed to do it and the county has to pay for the cost. No personal appearances required either. Make it clear in the law that it cannot be used to hassle LACs anymore. That will seriously discourage such things. As a practical matter it would likely eliminate them since the primary pupose of such laws is soley to hassle otherwise LACs.

It would be nice to provide some teeth in the law as well, but that might be hard to get past the LE lobby.

[lieut89]

Quote

It remains to be seen just how much leverage the legal action gives us. These things are a big deal to us, but the antis might not give a hoot.

It certainly won't rattle the Chicago area anti's so long as it stays out of the area news outlets, which it has so far. With the exception of Fox News Chicago (not sure if it made an actual newscast but did make a blurb on the website), there has been absolutely zero reported around these parts regarding either suit.

[mauserme]

Non-Chicago Democrats have been suffering politically because of the things the Northeast corner has been doing to the entire state.

They now have just a few options from which to choose, the worst of them being to spend millions of dollars we don't have fighting against something the people in those areas so desparately want - especially when you look at this in the context of Heller and McDonald where their arguments ultimately lost.  This would be a very good way to become the minority party while only delaying the inevitable.

They will not all understand this but I'm hopefull many will.

[snubjob]

lieut89, on 14 May 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

Quote

It remains to be seen just how much leverage the legal action gives us. These things are a big deal to us, but the antis might not give a hoot.

It certainly won't rattle the Chicago area anti's so long as it stays out of the area news outlets, which it has so far. With the exception of Fox News Chicago (not sure if it made an actual newscast but did make a blurb on the website), there has been absolutely zero reported around these parts regarding either suit.

You're absolutely right! Those people don't give a damn what is going on in the world around them. They prefer to live in their own little dream world where all is well! And the rest of us continue to suffer for their complete disregard for anyone but themselves. They will continue to ignore this issue even if these lawsuits are successful, and continue to believe that they are right. You will never change the minds of those who have their heads buried so deeply in the sand! [Or buried deeply somewhere else!]

[CCR74]

Bravo, Todd - nice work.  I publicly acknowledge that you, Valinda, the many other organizers here at IllinoisCarry, and the NRA, ISRA, and SAF have done an outstanding job of preparing for the worst, but hoping for the best.  It was encouraging to see that you were in a position to act so quickly and with a credible plaintiff once the state failed to agree to reasonable efforts to regain our rights through the legislative process.  

While this is bittersweet as a taxpayer, it's unfortunate that sometimes we do have to fight city hall, as the metaphor says.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Mary Shepard for being willing to be the point-person for this fight and standing up for our rights.  While I am truly horrified by the attack she and her co-worker endured, I sincerely hope that her pain and suffering was not in vain and that she helps to ensure that others are able to defend themselves in the future.

Congratulations and best of luck with the suit.

Regards,
Chris

[CraigC]

mauserme, on 14 May 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

Non-Chicago Democrats have been suffering politically because of the things the Northeast corner has been doing to the entire state.

They now have just a few options from which to choose, the worst of them being to spend millions of dollars we don't have fighting against something the people in those areas so desparately want - especially when you look at this in the context of Heller and McDonald where their arguments ultimately lost.  This would be a very good way to become the minority party while only delaying the inevitable.

They will not all understand this but I'm hopefull many will.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm past compromise. They had their chance with 148.

The way I see it we leave them with two options.

A) Repeal UUW and A/UUW at zero cost to the state

Let both of these cases work their way through the courts at a cost of millions of dollars and countless man hours. In the end UUW and A/UUW are struck down.

I was fully behind 148. I didn't complain about being kept in the dark. I didn't gripe about compromises that I didn't agree with. Now I feel the need to say enough is enough. Let's stop pushing for a watered down legislative solution and let's reclaim the RIGHTS that have been trampled for so long.

[mauserme]

snubjob, on 14 May 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

lieut89, on 14 May 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

Quote

It remains to be seen just how much leverage the legal action gives us. These things are a big deal to us, but the antis might not give a hoot.

It certainly won't rattle the Chicago area anti's so long as it stays out of the area news outlets, which it has so far. With the exception of Fox News Chicago (not sure if it made an actual newscast but did make a blurb on the website), there has been absolutely zero reported around these parts regarding either suit.

You're absolutely right! Those people don't give a damn what is going on in the world around them. They prefer to live in their own little dream world where all is well! And the rest of us continue to suffer for their complete disregard for anyone but themselves. They will continue to ignore this issue even if these lawsuits are successful, and continue to believe that they are right. You will never change the minds of those who have their heads buried so deeply in the sand! [Or buried deeply somewhere else!]

Yet more than anything else they want to keep policital power even if it means giving in on a single issue.  Their leadership understands a tactical retreat.

Here's a scenario that could help them save face.  Chicago has a new mayor Monday morning.  He could easily turn Right to Carry into a win for them by going neutral on the issue or even, dare I say it, showing support.  He does not have the power to fight it right now anyway.

Wishful thinking to be sure, but if they sit down and think about this they could turn it into their win very easily.  If they don't, their choices only lead to more unpleasantness for them politically.