Jump to content


Photo

Shepard vs IL Attorney General


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
89 replies to this topic

#31 samy12386

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 10

Posted 30 May 2011 - 11:39 PM

If I am jumping the gun (no pun intended) or speaking about something I shouldn't please delete my post, no hard feelings but could this be the start of constituional carry in Il? maybe a case to cause it nationwide?
SEMPER FI

#32 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 31 May 2011 - 05:30 AM

If I am jumping the gun (no pun intended) or speaking about something I shouldn't please delete my post, no hard feelings but could this be the start of constituional carry in Il? maybe a case to cause it nationwide?



I suspect those who are expecting the courts to step in and give us some kind of carry without LTC are asking a lot, and may end up with something that is severely lacking in utlity if they did.

I rate chances of the courts mandating anything as close to zero, other than that carry is some kind of right. One of the problems is that 49 other states would be impacted because they won't make up a special rule just for Illinois, plus the courts prefer to defer to the legislature on this kind of thing, as they should.

In the long run, we are far better off dealing with the problem legislatively.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#33 Sidartha

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 10

Posted 31 May 2011 - 12:06 PM

I suspect those who are expecting the courts to step in and give us some kind of carry without LTC are asking a lot, and may end up with something that is severely lacking in utlity if they did.

I rate chances of the courts mandating anything as close to zero, other than that carry is some kind of right. One of the problems is that 49 other states would be impacted because they won't make up a special rule just for Illinois, plus the courts prefer to defer to the legislature on this kind of thing, as they should.

In the long run, we are far better off dealing with the problem legislatively.

I think it's interesting that you would say that after what we saw the legislature do 26 days ago.


This is a violation of a Federally Protected Right and like any unconstitutional law the court system is exactly where it needs to be rectified.

As far as Constitutional Carry and License To Carry all one has to do is read the lawsuits filed.

Lets pretend for a moment that the ISRA and the SAF are not enemies. That in order to achieve their shared goal they may have talked to each other about their respective lawsuits. And that perhaps they actually coordinated their efforts and have a shared, mutually beneficial strategy.

That strategy might entail presenting different arguments to different courts in different federal districts. It might be that there are lawsuits already in the federal court system whose ruling might affect one argument more than it might another. They(the ISRA and SAF) might have even considered that by presenting two different arguments to the SCOTUS they allow the SCOTUS to essentially choose whether it wants to issue a broad or a narrow ruling thus gaining a victory while still hedging their bets.

'course what do I know?
I'm just a nobody from nowhere who only has ten posts to his name.

#34 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 31 May 2011 - 12:16 PM


I suspect those who are expecting the courts to step in and give us some kind of carry without LTC are asking a lot, and may end up with something that is severely lacking in utlity if they did.

I rate chances of the courts mandating anything as close to zero, other than that carry is some kind of right. One of the problems is that 49 other states would be impacted because they won't make up a special rule just for Illinois, plus the courts prefer to defer to the legislature on this kind of thing, as they should.

In the long run, we are far better off dealing with the problem legislatively.

I think it's interesting that you would say that after what we saw the legislature do 26 days ago.


This is a violation of a Federally Protected Right and like any unconstitutional law the court system is exactly where it needs to be rectified.

As far as Constitutional Carry and License To Carry all one has to do is read the lawsuits filed.

Lets pretend for a moment that the ISRA and the SAF are not enemies. That in order to achieve their shared goal they may have talked to each other about their respective lawsuits. And that perhaps they actually coordinated their efforts and have a shared, mutually beneficial strategy.

That strategy might entail presenting different arguments to different courts in different federal districts. It might be that there are lawsuits already in the federal court system whose ruling might affect one argument more than it might another. They(the ISRA and SAF) might have even considered that by presenting two different arguments to the SCOTUS they allow the SCOTUS to essentially choose whether it wants to issue a broad or a narrow ruling thus gaining a victory while still hedging their bets.

'course what do I know?
I'm just a nobody from nowhere who only has ten posts to his name.

Well you've got 11 now and it seems pretty logical to me :pinch::thumbsup:

#35 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 31 May 2011 - 09:14 PM


In the long run, we are far better off dealing with the problem legislatively.

I think it's interesting that you would say that after what we saw the legislature do 26 days ago.


I am more afraid of what the courts might do in the name of solving the problem than of waiting a few years to fix it legislatively. It is very hard to undo a SCOTUS decision, and we only have to get one bad one to screw us forever, even one that appears to be a "win". We can always wait two years and try again in the legislature. OTOH, in the 3 to 5 years it may take to get a decision on these cases from SCOTUS, we could still have two more shots at it legislatively, and there is no reason not to continue trying along those lines.

I'm just a nobody from nowhere who only has ten posts to his name.


Despite the prevailing wisdom here that there is only one worthy POV, I think you made a fine 11th post.

Personally, I doubt there was any coordination at all up front between the two parties. While I could be wrong, I suspect we will never know with any surety one way or the other.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#36 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 06:21 AM

I am more afraid of what the courts might do in the name of solving the problem than of waiting a few years to fix it legislatively. It is very hard to undo a SCOTUS decision, and we only have to get one bad one to screw us forever, even one that appears to be a "win". We can always wait two years and try again in the legislature. OTOH, in the 3 to 5 years it may take to get a decision on these cases from SCOTUS, we could still have two more shots at it legislatively, and there is no reason not to continue trying along those lines.

You don't have to look very far to find multiple posts by Molly B explaining IC's three prong approach to Right to Carry - legislative, judicial, and electoral.

And Abolt's multiple posts explaining that HB0148 is a viable bill until January 2013 are equally easy to find.

Its true, we could wait "a few years to fix it legislatively" "in the 3 to 5 years it may take to get a decision on these cases from SCOTUS", or we could continue our three prong approach of multiple, simultaneous efforts to achieve our goals. It seems obvious to me that waiting 2 years does nothing but delay the outcome 2 years. This thing is coming to a head, and I say its about time.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#37 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 01 June 2011 - 05:33 PM


I am more afraid of what the courts might do in the name of solving the problem than of waiting a few years to fix it legislatively. It is very hard to undo a SCOTUS decision, and we only have to get one bad one to screw us forever, even one that appears to be a "win". We can always wait two years and try again in the legislature. OTOH, in the 3 to 5 years it may take to get a decision on these cases from SCOTUS, we could still have two more shots at it legislatively, and there is no reason not to continue trying along those lines.

You don't have to look very far to find multiple posts by Molly B explaining IC's three prong approach to Right to Carry - legislative, judicial, and electoral.

And Abolt's multiple posts explaining that HB0148 is a viable bill until January 2013 are equally easy to find.

Viable in a real sense? It is like a keeping someone who is brain dead on a machine. Technically he is not dead until you pull the plug. When was the last time a bill on postponed consideration actually passed? For that matter, has any bill that preempts home rule powers passed in the last two or three decades?

Its true, we could wait "a few years to fix it legislatively" "in the 3 to 5 years it may take to get a decision on these cases from SCOTUS", or we could continue our three prong approach of multiple, simultaneous efforts to achieve our goals. It seems obvious to me that waiting 2 years does nothing but delay the outcome 2 years. This thing is coming to a head, and I say its about time.
The next election will be upon us before any of these court cases mean anything in any practical way, although the DC carry case ought to be decided sooner (thanks to whoever it was that pointed that one out to me). Weirdly, it may not help us much if it is decided in our favor and DC elects not to appeal. If the antis have a lick of sense and DC loses, that is what they would do.


I am not opposed to going after it at the ballot box and legislatively, but that takes some political acumen and a serious strategy. Who knows what redistricting throws into the mix? Maybe not much. But it is a good bet a few more Ds than Rs after the next election. That's what redistricting is all about. We may have our hands full just staying even. OTOH, it is way too early to know what the next crisis in Illinois will be and what that might bring to the mix.

Face it. We were taken out to the woodshed and whooped. Instead of pretending that is some kind of moral victory we need to move on and do what it takes to ultimately win in the legislature. That is where the fight has to be eventually, even if we win in the courts we may not get all that much and will have to get what we need in the GA.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#38 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 05:55 PM

Sorry Bob, I didn't mean to make you angry.

It seems you no longer counsel 2 to 5 years of inactivity as the best course of action and that's good because, frankly, plaintiffs and their attorneys will continue their plans with or without your consent.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#39 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 01 June 2011 - 08:42 PM

Sorry Bob, I didn't mean to make you angry.

It seems you no longer counsel 2 to 5 years of inactivity as the best course of action and that's good because, frankly, plaintiffs and their attorneys will continue their plans with or without your consent.



I have never counseled any period of inactivity. But I don't counsel waiting for a miracle either, which seems to be the current thinking here.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#40 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:09 PM

...
We can always wait two years and try again in the legislature. .
...

I must have misread that part of your earlier post to mean you wanted to wait two years before doing anything. It's good to know we all agree that "things" must be done now in order to effect any change. Understandably, there will be some differences of opinion in what those "things" should be, but push ahead we must.

Now, understanding that this thread was started more as an informational post than a request for votes on how to proceed, and also recognizing that the attorneys involved will chart their own course as they feel best fits the needs of their clients, is there a specific suggestion that might benefit them other than "don't litigate"?


Edited for grammar.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#41 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,196 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:13 PM

But I don't counsel waiting for a miracle either, which seems to be the current thinking here.

You sure as heck aren't reading that from the leadership of IllinoisCarry.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#42 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:18 PM


...
We can always wait two years and try again in the legislature. .
...

I must have misread that part of your earlier post to mean you wanted to wait 2 years doing anything. It's good to know we all agree that "things" must be done now in order to effect any change. Understandably, there will be some differences of opinion in what those "things" should be but push ahead we must.

Now, understanding that this thread was started more as an informational post than a request for votes on how to proceed, and also recognizing that the attorneys involved will chart their own course as they feel best fits the needs of their clients, is there a specific suggestion that might benefit them other than "don't litigate"?

I do not think at this point there are any good answers for the immediate future. best to prepare for the next election and try and affect things there. We will almost certainly see another election before we see any practical effect from any of these cases.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#43 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:10 PM

We will almost certainly see another election before we see any practical effect from any of these cases.

And that's really about the worst that could happen if things were to go against us - no practical effect. This is not the kind of case that can lead to bad law from a bad ruling.

Many of us, however, are very optimistic about this case as well as Moore, especially in light of a case in another state that I won't go into here because one disagreement is enough. Some of us even thought litigation is long overdue, though in retrospect I'll say the timing might be a little better now.

Yes, some will see greater value in the legislative and electoral processes and that's just fine. There's no requirement for us to agree on everything - 2/3 is enough.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#44 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,273 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 24 June 2011 - 02:06 AM

Any word when this case is supposed to be making progress?

#45 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 24 June 2011 - 05:17 AM

Any word when this case is supposed to be making progress?


June 21st NRA case update by Krucam on MDS -

Defendant Madigan (IL) requested and received an extension to file their response to this suit.

Bad news...
Quote:
06/20/2011 16 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by David Livesay. (Bleyer, Joseph) (Entered: 06/20/2011)

06/21/2011 17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The movant has demonstrated good cause for a thirty (30) day extension of time to file an answer. Defendant David Livesay answer due 7/8/11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 6/21/11. (ajt) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/21/2011)

06/21/2011 David Livesay answer due 7/8/2011. (ajt, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
Their 30 day request worked out to be about 17 days by my rough SWAG when granted...good news.


Link to MDS thread - http://www.mdshooter...ead.php?t=57917
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#46 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,196 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 24 June 2011 - 07:19 AM

Here is the docket link for anyone wanting to monitor the case -
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#47 samy12386

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 10

Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:27 PM

Here is the docket link for anyone wanting to monitor the case -


Could someone translate for my simple mind?
SEMPER FI

#48 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 27 June 2011 - 04:35 AM


Here is the docket link for anyone wanting to monitor the case -


Could someone translate for my simple mind?


Defendant Sheriff David Livesay filed a motion June 20th asking for an extension of 30 days to answer the complaint. The judge granted the motion June 21st and extended the deadline to July 8th (the same deadline given to the other defendants in a previous motion for extension granted June 6th).
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#49 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 27 June 2011 - 05:54 AM

And that's really about the worst that could happen if things were to go against us - no practical effect. This is not the kind of case that can lead to bad law from a bad ruling.



I am not sure what you consider "the worst". To me the worst would be a win that the other side chose not to challenge, making the ruling of very limited value. Kind of like the lone judge in WI who ruled that the laws in WI against carry are unconstitutional. Just did not mean much, except to the defendant. I don't know if that is an option in IL though. I am not sure but it may be that the IL AG is required to appeal any state law found to be unconstitutional by a lower state court. I am not sure either way on that issue. Maybe an actual lawyer can respond on that point of law.

The best thing for us is to lose in the lower courts and some kind of big win at the IL SC, as unlikely as that is. My biggest fear is we get some kind of half-assed win that ends up not meaning all that much. It is not all that easy to appeal a win. What do you do? Go back to the court and say "I know you handed us a victory, but we want a do over because after thinking about it for a while, what we got was not good enough to suit us". It is possible to do that, but a lot easier if you just lose.

Considering the generally poor quality of the legal work done by Lisa to date, our best hope may be that she takes a personal interest in the case.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#50 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 27 June 2011 - 06:42 AM


And that's really about the worst that could happen if things were to go against us - no practical effect. This is not the kind of case that can lead to bad law from a bad ruling.



I am not sure what you consider "the worst". To me the worst would be a win that the other side chose not to challenge, making the ruling of very limited value. Kind of like the lone judge in WI who ruled that the laws in WI against carry are unconstitutional. Just did not mean much, except to the defendant. I don't know if that is an option in IL though. I am not sure but it may be that the IL AG is required to appeal any state law found to be unconstitutional by a lower state court. I am not sure either way on that issue. Maybe an actual lawyer can respond on that point of law.

The best thing for us is to lose in the lower courts and some kind of big win at the IL SC, as unlikely as that is. My biggest fear is we get some kind of half-assed win that ends up not meaning all that much. It is not all that easy to appeal a win. What do you do? Go back to the court and say "I know you handed us a victory, but we want a do over because after thinking about it for a while, what we got was not good enough to suit us". It is possible to do that, but a lot easier if you just lose.

Considering the generally poor quality of the legal work done by Lisa to date, our best hope may be that she takes a personal interest in the case.


This is filed in District court. If there is a loss there, it will be appealed to the 7th Circuit. This is a Federal case and will not go to the IL SC.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#51 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 10:33 AM


And that's really about the worst that could happen if things were to go against us - no practical effect. This is not the kind of case that can lead to bad law from a bad ruling.



I am not sure what you consider "the worst". To me the worst would be a win that the other side chose not to challenge, making the ruling of very limited value. Kind of like the lone judge in WI who ruled that the laws in WI against carry are unconstitutional. Just did not mean much, except to the defendant. I don't know if that is an option in IL though. I am not sure but it may be that the IL AG is required to appeal any state law found to be unconstitutional by a lower state court. I am not sure either way on that issue. Maybe an actual lawyer can respond on that point of law.

The best thing for us is to lose in the lower courts and some kind of big win at the IL SC, as unlikely as that is. My biggest fear is we get some kind of half-assed win that ends up not meaning all that much. It is not all that easy to appeal a win. What do you do? Go back to the court and say "I know you handed us a victory, but we want a do over because after thinking about it for a while, what we got was not good enough to suit us". It is possible to do that, but a lot easier if you just lose.

Considering the generally poor quality of the legal work done by Lisa to date, our best hope may be that she takes a personal interest in the case.


Its probably best that plaintiffs didn't seek your counsel first.

You can go ahead and keep trying to lower everyone's expectations because that seems to be the thing you do best. The rest of us will work toward Right to Carry in the mean time.

Or, as I suggested in another thread, you could concentrate your efforts on the elections since that seems to strike you as the only possible path to success. There is an opportunity here for you to help - will you accept it?
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#52 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,099 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 27 June 2011 - 04:28 PM

Its probably best that plaintiffs didn't seek your counsel first.

You can go ahead and keep trying to lower everyone's expectations because that seems to be the thing you do best. The rest of us will work toward Right to Carry in the mean time.

Or, as I suggested in another thread, you could concentrate your efforts on the elections since that seems to strike you as the only possible path to success. There is an opportunity here for you to help - will you accept it?


Why is it that you feel the need to continually mischaracterize my position?

I have never said that the elections are the only path to follow. The legal stuff is a necessary side show IMO. If you want to believe that some kind of miracle will happen and we will get some kind of useful carry out of it, feel free to do so.

I would be more than happy to help in some kind of useful efforts. I just have not seen anyone propose anything of late along those lines. All I see is blind trust in what is going on and attacks on anyone with the temerity to think for themselves.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#53 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 04:55 PM

...
The legal stuff is a necessary side show IMO. If you want to believe that some kind of miracle will happen and we will get some kind of useful carry out of it, feel free to do so.
...


I don't think I have mischaracterized what you're doing.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#54 Johnnybgood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,224 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 05

Posted 01 August 2011 - 03:50 PM

I see the Brady Center to disarm citizens was given leave to file their brief 7/29/11. Any idea how long they were given? Looks like more delay tactics. Yes?

#55 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,196 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:08 PM

I see the Brady Center to disarm citizens was given leave to file their brief 7/29/11. Any idea how long they were given? Looks like more delay tactics. Yes?

Where do you "see" this?
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#56 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:09 PM

Todd attached a copy to Post 209 of this thread over in the Right to Carry forum.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#57 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,659 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:11 PM

they were told last week to file immediatly
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#58 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:13 PM

Sorry - I think I answered a question not asked.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#59 Johnnybgood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,224 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 05

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:17 PM

Molly, I went to the docket link you provided. It was at the bottom.

#60 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,196 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:25 PM

Todd attached a copy to Post 209 of this thread over in the Right to Carry forum.


Molly, I went to the docket link you provided. It was at the bottom.

Thank you, gentlemen. I was thinking this was a new development since then.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams