840 replies to this topic

[mauserme]

Even with an emergency session they will need 71 votes in the House to preempt home rule.  Without support from pro-gun representatives they might not have that.

Could we be on the verge of Constitutional Carry?

[TyGuy]

As I stated on OC.org I just need GOA to get involved to get the Superfecta!  I donate to NRA, ISRA, SAF, and GOA.  If they all are involved in getting RTC for IL I think I win 30:1 or something.  Or I just sleep well knowing that my $$$ was well spent.

[05FLHT]

blackhalo, on 07 July 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

I would love to see them pass HB148 in response to this...  But even if they issued an injunction at the district court level, it would likely be stayed pending 7th Circuit review.

I would love to see HB148 renegotiated. Less fees, less training (Hunter Safety or NRA Basic Pistol being sufficient), and NO requal's.

If the injunction is granted, the shoes on the other foot. Now the other side would need OUR votes to pass the bill. Otherwise...

[05FLHT]

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Even with an emergency session they will need 71 votes in the House to preempt home rule.  Without support from pro-gun representatives they might not have that.

Could we be on the verge of Constitutional Carry?

UUW would be unenforceable.

[Uncle Harley]

I guess that is what I was trying to say,  do you think they will try to pass 148  premptivly  as is   or try to change it up?   Either way I know they arent going to allow  Constitutional carry.

[05FLHT]

Uncle Harley, on 07 July 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I guess that is what I was trying to say,  do you think they will try to pass 148  premptivly  as is   or try to change it up?   Either way I know they arent going to allow  Constitutional carry.

It puts pressure on them to do that...but they (the other side) still needs 71 votes. Our 'leverage' just increased exponentially.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[mauserme]

05FLHT, on 07 July 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Even with an emergency session they will need 71 votes in the House to preempt home rule.  Without support from pro-gun representatives they might not have that.

Could we be on the verge of Constitutional Carry?

UUW would be unenforceable.

But if they try to pass something before an injunction, UUW is still enforceable and home rule units would still be able to pass carry bans.   Thus, 71 votes.

They would have to wait until after an injunction is issued which, hopefully, will severly limit what they might be able to include.

[Joeyl]

05FLHT, on 07 July 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

The SAF, F@#$ YEAH!

+1000 Damn, things are just picking up steam here in the land of Lincoln.

[TyGuy]

I see one of those Hitler youtube videos with him responding to Illinois RTC in the making.

[TyGuy]

If you don't know what I am talking about, here it is.

[Molly B.]

TyGuy, on 07 July 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

I see one of those Hitler youtube videos with him responding to Illinois RTC in the making.

With Hitler leaning over his desk muttering that at least he can count on the 7th Circuit Appellate Court to keep the Chicago bans in place .. . and all his staff looking at each other with that worried look!!

[05FLHT]

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

05FLHT, on 07 July 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Even with an emergency session they will need 71 votes in the House to preempt home rule.  Without support from pro-gun representatives they might not have that.

Could we be on the verge of Constitutional Carry?

UUW would be unenforceable.

But if they try to pass something before an injunction, UUW is still enforceable and home rule units would still be able to pass carry bans.   Thus, 71 votes.

They would have to wait until after an injunction is issued which, hopefully, will severly limit what they might be able to include.

They could pass unconstitutional carry bans, until they too are knee deep in a lawsuit. That would not be very fiscally responsible...

[bob]

I would bet against anything happening real quick. This is a much bigger deal than a generalized ruling that gun ranges can't be completely prohibited.

The courts are likely to take this one a little slower.

And that is not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of places we can still get tripped up on even if the UUW provisions being objected to are stricken.

[pyre400]

05FLHT, on 07 July 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

The SAF, F@#$ YEAH!

I couldn't say it better than that. SAF-FY!

[frankw438]

05FLHT, on 07 July 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

Uncle Harley, on 07 July 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

I guess that is what I was trying to say,  do you think they will try to pass 148  premptivly  as is   or try to change it up?   Either way I know they arent going to allow  Constitutional carry.

It puts pressure on them to do that...but they (the other side) still needs 71 votes. Our 'leverage' just increased exponentially.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This is exactly what I've been thinking. If they try to pass a restrictive carry law (a la Chicago's handgun permit law), they will still need 71 votes to pass it because as Madigan has ruled, any firearms law requires a super majority to pass. They don't have the votes to pass a restrictive carry law without a lot of downstate support. Now they are forced to vote for a "reasonable" carry law (better than HB148), or see the FOID card become a de facto carry permit when they can't enforce UUW or AUUW laws.

-- Frank

[boog]

wake up the kids, call the neighbors ( and your reps)

boog

[frankw438]

I just finished reading the Motion for Injunction and the Memorandum, and I have to say that those are some very powerful words. It gave me goosebumps.

Wow. Just Wow.

Smells like a homerun to me, but IANAL...

-- Frank

[05FLHT]

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

I would bet against anything happening real quick. This is a much bigger deal than a generalized ruling that gun ranges can't be completely prohibited.

The courts are likely to take this one a little slower.

And that is not necessarily a bad thing. There are a lot of places we can still get tripped up on even if the UUW provisions being objected to are stricken.

The 7th laid out the framework for deciding 2A issues in Ezell. The PI fits right into that framework. Bearing arms (outside of the home) may be a 'bigger deal,' but the handwriting has been on the wall since Heller was decided. Carry is not just 'core' to the right, carry is the right itself. My guess is the ILGA pulls a Rahm and tries to head off the inevitable outcome, UUW and Ag UUW being unenforceable. That's a can of worms, you would think, that the ILGA would not be willing to open. The only way to do this is to pass a carry bill. The only bill that stands a chance of passing is 148. Talk of a 'compromise' with 'may issue' or a 'Chicago cut out' are off the table, as they should have been all along.

As far as 'sensitive places,' 148 addresses those (for now). Fleshing out exactly what is a 'sensitive place' is going to be the next step once the right to bear arms (outside of the home) is secured.

[mauserme]

Quote

There is also no dispute that the Defendants threaten to enforce the UUW and AUUW
statutes against Plaintiffs and are accordingly subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendant Hiram Grau manages and controls the State Police, the duties of which include
enforcing the criminal laws of Illinois. See 20 ILCS 2610/2, 16. Defendant Lisa Madigan is the
Attorney General of Illinois, whose statutory duties include assisting State's Attorneys in the
investigation and prosecution of violations of State law and advising other State actors regarding
Illinois' criminal laws. See 15 ILCS 205/4. The official duties of both Defendants create an
imminent and credible threat of prosecution.

Did anyone else notice the Section 1983 verbage?

If I was named in that paragraph I might take that as a warning.

[pyre400]

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Did anyone else notice the Section 1983 verbage?

If I was named in that paragraph I might take that as a warning.

You'd be an intelligent person, who is not blinded by arrogance.

[ishmo]

pyre400, on 07 July 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

mauserme, on 07 July 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Did anyone else notice the Section 1983 verbage?

If I was named in that paragraph I might take that as a warning.

You'd be an intelligent person, who is not blinded by arrogance.

+1 on that. I wonder what daddy Mike's plan to get princess Lisa out of this one is

[bob]

You really think any of them care about wasting a few million more of our tax dollars when they are pissing away billions?

They will only care when it hits them in their own pocketbook.

Gura should ask for punitive damages.

[mauserme]

bob, on 07 July 2011 - 09:06 PM, said:

They will only care when it hits them in their own pocketbook.

That would be the point of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

[FF17]

How long does a judge have to rule on this injunction?

[ike]

I would like to see HB148 pulled ,and a new bill submitted since we have the momentum now,A few things I would like are :
1- $50.00/5 year permit with a $15 renewal
2-anyone on a fixed income is exempt from any fees to acquire or hold a permit
3- restaurant carry
4-any training program for a ccw permit would meet state minimun's
5-complete reciprocity with all other 49 states
6-I don't have to inform a police officer of ccw at the first point of contact
I believe that we should want everything and give nothing away. let the antis beg for a change.
We are the last state to do this.With  49 other models to follow I think we should pick the best of it and hold fast. with the change in the courts ,I think we can hold out and win

[NakPPI]

ike, on 08 July 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

I would like to see HB148 pulled ,and a new bill submitted since we have the momentum now,A few things I would like are :
1- $50.00/5 year permit with a $15 renewal
2-anyone on a fixed income is exempt from any fees to acquire or hold a permit
3- restaurant carry
4-any training program for a ccw permit would meet state minimun's
5-complete reciprocity with all other 49 states
6-I don't have to inform a police officer of ccw at the first point of contact
I believe that we should want everything and give nothing away. let the antis beg for a change.
We are the last state to do this.With  49 other models to follow I think we should pick the best of it and hold fast. with the change in the courts ,I think we can hold out and win

I agree. Pull hb 148 and copy wisconsin's law.

[05FLHT]

FF17, on 08 July 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

How long does a judge have to rule on this injunction?

This is a post by Patrick on MDS that offers a very good explanation of what we can expect - http://www.mdshooter...ead.php?t=61338

Quote

Need a new thread for that one. It is going to be a fast burner. It could be in and out of the courts in under 60 days.

The games played in the past are coming to an end.

Ezell ruled that violations of 2A are characterized by "irreparable harm". That standard is huge, as it demands an instant analysis of the restriction in question and it requires a instant response (injunction) if it violates the right. So the court need only evaluate the right...not the harm caused by the restriction (which is irreparable).

In Ezell, much of the fight was over the "harm" that the range ban caused. The district court ruled the harm was minimal, and that even if it were serious it would not be 'irreparable' to the right (which the judge said did not exist). There can be no such argument over harm anymore. Case closed.


When a case comes before the court with jurisprudence already supplying an 'irreparable harm' standard, it goes right to the front of the line. This is not going to be a six month review...it could be done in under two months. Then on to the Seventh Circuit for appeal, where it will also get the fast track.

Add up the calendars...three months for the district court and three months in the circuit. Six months plus some change...that means ready for a cert request this coming session. Again...ruling from SCOTUS next June.

That's three, if you include Williams and Masciandaro.

I'm stealing Mark's line: 2012 is going to be a great year.

[papa]

If we are going this far ( and I agree we should ) I think #4 should be struck out too.

Things are going our way and I think it is time we quit agreeing to all these restrictions. We bent over backwards , to the point of almost breaking our own backs , to get HB148 accepted and we still didn't make it.

We now have the courts upholding the law as it should be so why should we beg. It is time to do some demanding.

[mauserme]

Somebody already posted this so consider my vote for FOID = Concealed Carry Permit as +1 to that.

The FOID is an already established system that includes a background check to disqualify felons and the mentally infirm from firearm possession.  I think we might be at that point were we can change the discussion from one of law abiding citizens having to qualify to excercise the right, to a discussion about the state disqualifying certain individuals for specific behavior.  The FOID has been doing just that for decades.

The fee for the FOID does not present an undue burden upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment.  Further, adopting the FOID as the carry permit elimates any potential vaccuum that might exist between the time an injunction is issued and the  time a bill that will pass Consitutional muster could be cobbled together.  No negotiations would be necessary and no emergency sessions.

Yes, this would be less restrictive than many Illinois legilators would like to see but their input may soon become irrelevant.  It is more restrictive than we see in many states right now and, to borrow a phrase from Ezell, "the sky has not fallen" in those states.

I would only add that I would like to also see unregulated open carry as I belive the court specified by inference in Heller.

[Jeffrey]

If the FOID is good enough for us to transport our guns, what difference is the transport if it is in a bag or on our person?