80 replies to this topic

[Davey]

BudMan5, on 13 May 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

So much win...

Now, Representative Phelps needs to start fighting for passage of House Bill 148 "in order to prevent the Court from making a decision that bthe FOID is a concealed carry permit."

How is this bad?  Because we'd be stuck with the FOID I take it?

[mauserme]

I think Budman might have meant that in a tactical sense.   Use the threat that the FOID will become the carry license as the stick while offering HB148 as the carrot.

[Bud]

Davey, on 14 May 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

BudMan5, on 13 May 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

05FLHT, on 13 May 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

So much win...

Now, Representative Phelps needs to start fighting for passage of House Bill 148 "in order to prevent the Court from making a decision that bthe FOID is a concealed carry permit."

How is this bad?  Because we'd be stuck with the FOID I take it?

It would be bad for the anti-gun crowd because instantly, several hundred thousand Illinois residents would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon without any training required, and only a $10.00 application for a permit that is good for ten years.

And what's even better? There would be no defined gun free zones in the entire State!

[snubjob]

The new mayor of chicago will be stepping directly into the old mayor's shoes. I am as hopeful as anyone, but it's my opinion[only an opinion] that Rahmbo is a Daley clone. Same cronies. Same agenda. Same ole thing. I really hope i'm wrong, but we've all seen it for years. Don't forget that he's already shown that he opposes this in a joint letter with Daley a little while back!

[RandyP]

Based on his record and his comments, my new Mayor is an even more strident gun hater and anti-gun rights machine politician than Daley ever was. Chicago is just his temporary stepping stone to a White House bid IMHO and the man who remains proud of his Assault Weapon ban and advocacy is not likely to ever change his stance in our favor. The Rahminator will make Daley look like an NRA spokesman.

[Ocellairs]

......it's about time. Now we will get some where!  This backs the little buggers into a corner and lets them know we just wasn't whistling Dixie on the floor during the vote on 148.

Luv it that the suit.....VS Madigan !

[ming]

[quote name='mauserme' date='14 May 2011 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1305383545' post='271820']
[quote name='snubjob' date='14 May 2011 - 09:20 AM' timestamp='1305382823' post='271814']
[quote name='lieut89' date='14 May 2011 - 07:36 AM' timestamp='1305380204' post='271798']
[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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]
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!]
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

I would love to see Rahmbo do a turnaround on CCW but I can't imagine it happening.  He's more likely to fight to the end and if SCOTUS rules against the state he'll be saying how wrong they are just like Daley did.

[lieut89]

ming, on 14 May 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

I would love to see Rahmbo do a turnaround on CCW but I can't imagine it happening.  He's more likely to fight to the end and if SCOTUS rules against the state he'll be saying how wrong they are just like Daley did.

These two suits however, have nothing to do with Chicago per se, so I don't really care about his stance at this point in time. I am more interested in the actual legislators in Cook or Champaign and their reactions to the ensuing litigation.

[bob]

BudMan5, on 14 May 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

And what's even better? There would be no defined gun free zones in the entire State!

As a guy claiming to have been a cop for many years, you should know better. There are already all kinds of gun free zones as defined in 720 ILCS 5/21-6.

Quote

  (720 ILCS 5/21‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑6)
    Sec. 21‑6. Unauthorized Possession or Storage of Weapons.
    (a) Whoever possesses or stores any weapon enumerated in Section 33A‑1 in any building or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds or in any building on such land without prior written permission from the chief security officer for such land or building commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Every park, school, public building, and the land and parking lots are gun free zones, even if they are not called by that name. The way it is defined it might even extend to TIF districts.

If we don't fix this problem, whatever carry options we have will be all but worthless.

[junglebob]

BudMan5, on 13 May 2011 - 03:34 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.

Don't forget Illinois Carry for a donation. Everybody here should by an Illinois Carry supporter. You can become one for $25. Click on "Subscriptions" on the top of this page.

This money goes for supporting the ton hall meetings and all the incidental "out of pocket" expenses that are incurred by Valinda and Mike Rowe (Molly B.) while they go around the entire State from their home in way southern Illinois.

They attend Illinois Carry Town Hall meetings, set up information  booths at competitions, march in parades and everytrhing to do with getting the word out.

I urge all of you to donate whatever you can to all of the organizations but the first one should be Illinois Carry

I am not a recipient of any of this monety and as you can see from my post under the helicopter is the fact that I have already done it.

Well I clicked on the subscription button something I've been meaning to do for a while. I keep getting an error message saying I haven't chosen a subscription.

BTW, I saw a post this morning about a video of Brandon Phelps talking about bringing a lawsuit when Hb148 was going to a vote.  Now I can't find the topic.  If it is still up I'd like to go to it.

[w00dc4ip]

Is there a link to the NRA complaint anywhere?

[PPK]

w00dc4ip, on 14 May 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Is there a link to the NRA complaint anywhere?

From the ISRA website My link

[w00dc4ip]

PPK, on 14 May 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

From the ISRA website My link

Thank you.

[ike]

Tom Gresham's gun talk mentioned the two lawsuits today .I just caught the last of it in the first hour.will have to listen on podcact

[Molly B.]

bob, on 14 May 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:

As a guy claiming to have been a cop for many years, you should know better. There are already all kinds of gun free zones as defined in 720 ILCS 5/21-6.

Let's do this without the personal sniping. Example:

bob, on 14 May 2011 - 09:50 AM, said:

There are already all kinds of gun free zones as defined in 720 ILCS 5/21-6.

[mstrat]

ming, on 14 May 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

I would love to see Rahmbo do a turnaround on CCW but I can't imagine it happening.  He's more likely to fight to the end and if SCOTUS rules against the state he'll be saying how wrong they are just like Daley did.

Rahm is a political shark, and I don't think he intends to stay in Chicago.  The crown is rarely (never?) passed directly from one long-term ruler to the next. There are always interim mayors.  If he was intent on ruling Chicago for the rest of his career, he's smart enough to have waited until the next election.

Daley, on the other hand, never had his eye on a bigger prize than Chicago.  This was his kingdom and he used every ounce of political capital to rule it his way - courts be damned - until the bitter end.

All this to say: If fighting a court ruling the way Daley did could harm his greater aspirations in any way, Rahm will not do it.  He will quietly let the city council enact whatever ordinances they can get away with, and keep his name out of the paper.  Take note at how little he has said on the issue of firearms and the second amendment during the race.  

He knows Constitutionally-protected rights are a toxic issue for his future plans (likely governor or President).

[Drylok]

PPK, on 14 May 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

w00dc4ip, on 14 May 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Is there a link to the NRA complaint anywhere?

From the ISRA website My link

So the NRA is not a plaintiff just Mary and ISRA? I'm confused.

[Tvandermyde]

Done intentionaly, some times our name does not help

[mikew]

mstrat, on 15 May 2011 - 06:10 PM, said:

Take note at how little he has said on the issue of firearms and the second amendment during the race.  

I heard him distastefully mention the NRA a few times.

[dan]

Unlike many here I do not think they care about a law suit at all. They will fight it for years using our money to do that. In the mean time things stay the way they like it. In the end they will just ignore the rulings like Chicago already has. There is no enforcement of court rulings in this City. Sad but true.

[ming]

dan, on 17 May 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

Unlike many here I do not think they care about a law suit at all. They will fight it for years using our money to do that. In the mean time things stay the way they like it. In the end they will just ignore the rulings like Chicago already has. There is no enforcement of court rulings in this City. Sad but true.

This isn't quite true although at times it seems to be the case.  When SCOTUS ruled the complete ban on handgun possession in the city to be unconstitutional, the city obeyed the ruling.  Of course it set up certain roadblocks, but that was to be expected given our ex-mayors position on the issue. However, it certainly did not just ignore the ruling.