339 replies to this topic

[tysonu74]

mauserme, on 23 July 2011 - 10:33 AM, said:

I like that the State itself introduces the fact that, if the injunction were granted, Right to Carry would still be subject to regulation.  Their argument that the FOID is insufficent as a regulatory mechanism might eventually work against them but that would be a different case.

In any event, asking the court to condone prior restraint on the grounds that a law abiding citizen might eventully opt to become a criminal probably won't go anywhere.

With this line of thinking doesnt "innocent till proven guilty" mean anything?

[bob]

tysonu74, on 23 July 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

With this line of thinking doesnt "innocent till proven guilty" mean anything?

It is only a meaningful thing in criminal court cases. That is the only place the government is required to prove you guilty and you have a presumption of innocence. Otherwise, the government is free to treat you pretty much any way it chooses.

[mauserme]

bob, on 23 July 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

Otherwise, the government is free to treat you pretty much any way it chooses.

Now you're just being silly.

[bob]

mauserme, on 24 July 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

bob, on 23 July 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

Otherwise, the government is free to treat you pretty much any way it chooses.

Now you're just being silly.

Nope. that's the way it is. Think about it. When is the government ever required to treat you as if you are innocent? In fact, it almost always treats citizens as if they are guilty of something. Otherwise they would not have guards and locked doors, nor would they need armed cops to enforce their will.

None of which is necessarily all bad.

[colt-45]

any news on how long the judge might take?

[Milhouse86]

Did Tod have a chance to break it down and give us what he thought yet? I looked through this thread and did not see it, but I could be wrong.

[Tvandermyde]

not yet

[Milhouse86]

Tvandermyde, on 25 July 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

not yet

Ok thanks.

[Tvandermyde]

I've gotten through the carry in unincorpaorated areas stuff. it's all bullS**T. They are going to get busted on that one.

[Milhouse86]

Tvandermyde, on 25 July 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

I've gotten through the carry in unincorpaorated areas stuff. it's all bullS**T. They are going to get busted on that one.

Haha yah that part is funny. It is great how they think everyone is stupid. They would not try to get away with something like that unless they thought whoever was going to read it was to dumb to dispute it.

[Tvandermyde]

here are the filings, I'm putting them all up as I haven't had time to sort them out.

Attached Files

•  Illinois_Memorandum_is_Support_of_Motion_to_Dismiss1.pdf   93.22K   136 downloads
•  Illinois_Motion_to_Dismiss1.pdf   8.94K   96 downloads
•  Illinois_Objection_to_Motion_for_PI1.pdf   11.47K   94 downloads
•  Illinois_Response_to_Motion_for_PI1.pdf   91.25K   106 downloads
•  Livesay_Motion_for_Extension1.pdf   34.09K   124 downloads
•  Livesay_Motion_to_Dismiss1.pdf   54.46K   107 downloads

[wazzle]

So from what I just read in the previous posts, as long as you are outside the corporate city limits of any town, village etc. you are legally allowed to carry a loaded weapon on your person. To me, that would mean even on the streets of a subdivision as long as it is outside of the city limits of the nearby town and not in a vehicle. And, it means open carry. The whole unincorporated thing in the UUW statutes was so very vague that it was hard to understand where unincorporated and incorporated met. So, the city limit sign is where they meet.

Am I missing anything here?

[NakPPI]

wazzle, on 25 July 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

So from what I just read in the previous posts, as long as you are outside the corporate city limits of any town, village etc. you are legally allowed to carry a loaded weapon on your person. To me, that would mean even on the streets of a subdivision as long as it is outside of the city limits of the nearby town and not in a vehicle. And, it means open carry. The whole unincorporated thing in the UUW statutes was so very vague that it was hard to understand where unincorporated and incorporated met. So, the city limit sign is where they meet.

Am I missing anything here?

The state is twisting the words of the statute, carry a loaded gun on a public street is going to get you an aggravated uuw conviction. Don't do it. The exceptions are for hunting, not armed self defense. It's a legal trap that they hope the judge will fall into. There is no exception for armed self defense.

[Tvandermyde]

“A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

(10) Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or 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) (10) 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.”



The State does a masterful job of slight of hand in that they leave off the following portion of the quoted sentence “except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons,” The ability to carry or posses uncased, open and accessible weapons is an exception if they are used in the above described manner. Such as a color guard, drill team or veterans group with say a weapon mounted on vehicle in a parade or in the ‘commerce’ of those weapons. Not as an individual toting around a loaded gun. Clearly, the State is cherry picking the statute and ignoring the clear

"Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or" this covers ALL public streets they try to parse it to many ways to be be to cute by half.

[mauserme]

Are you saying its read like this:

Carries or possesses on or about his person,

> upon any public street,
> (or upon) any public alley,
> or (upon) other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village, or incorporated town, except...

so the "corporate limits" modifier applies only to "other public lands"?

[NakPPI]

Tvandermyde, on 25 July 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

The State does a masterful job of slight of hand in that they leave off the following portion of the quoted sentence “except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons,” The ability to carry or posses uncased, open and accessible weapons is an exception if they are used in the above described manner. Such as a color guard, drill team or veterans group with say a weapon mounted on vehicle in a parade or in the ‘commerce’ of those weapons. Not as an individual toting around a loaded gun. Clearly, the State is cherry picking the statute and ignoring the clear

"Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or" this covers ALL public streets they try to parse it to many ways to be be to cute by half.

+1

Words like "or" are kind of relevant to statutory construction.

[blackhalo]

Reading the State's opposition briefs, in the discussion of the inherited english right to "keep" arms, they seem to hang their hat on the fact that, early in the years of our republic, states enacted concealed carry bans, and that these state bans were never challenged.

But that ignores that fact that, until the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on federal power, not state power - thus any state restriction on concealed carry pre-14th Amendment is irrelevant,

[blackhalo]

Further, the Bill of Rights was often viewed as a response to the excesses of the British Crown (think quartering soldiers in private homes).  Thus, the protection of the right of the people to keep (in the home, protected under common law) and bear (in public, in contrast to the Statute of Northampton).

[Getzapped]

I am not sure what to make of all those motions??  I just don't have enough knowledge of the legal system!  anyone have the cliff notes?

[TomKoz]

Getzapped, on 25 July 2011 - 05:11 PM, said:

I am not sure what to make of all those motions??  I just don't have enough knowledge of the legal system!  anyone have the cliff notes?

Yes, here are the cliffnotes:  with the law as it stands, carry a loaded gun (open or concealed, or even an unloaded gun that is not in a case) ANYWHERE except in your home, in your place of business, or in somebody else's home without there permission ... You are screwed and you go to jail!   Technically, you can (assuming you have your FOID card on you) open carry on while on your land.  BUT, if someone sees you and calls LE, you probably will end up getting arrested for something!   Anyone disagree?

[Davey]

TomKoz, on 25 July 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

   Technically, you can (assuming you have your FOID card on you) open carry on while on your land.  BUT, if someone sees you and calls LE, you probably will end up getting arrested for something!   Anyone disagree?

I don't see how one could get into legal trouble for open carrying on his/her own land/property.  I don't see mowing my lawn with my XD holstered in the open could be illegal.

[TTIN]

Davey, on 25 July 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

TomKoz, on 25 July 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

   Technically, you can (assuming you have your FOID card on you) open carry on while on your land.  BUT, if someone sees you and calls LE, you probably will end up getting arrested for something!   Anyone disagree?

I don't see how one could get into legal trouble for open carrying on his/her own land/property.  I don't see mowing my lawn with my XD holstered in the open could be illegal.

It's called disturbing the peace.

[Sidartha]

Davey, on 25 July 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

TomKoz, on 25 July 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

   Technically, you can (assuming you have your FOID card on you) open carry on while on your land.  BUT, if someone sees you and calls LE, you probably will end up getting arrested for something!   Anyone disagree?

I don't see how one could get into legal trouble for open carrying on his/her own land/property.  I don't see mowing my lawn with my XD holstered in the open could be illegal.

Depending on the flavor of policeman you get they might throw a disorderly conduct charge at ya.

[abolt243]

TTIN, on 25 July 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

Davey, on 25 July 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

TomKoz, on 25 July 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

   Technically, you can (assuming you have your FOID card on you) open carry on while on your land.  BUT, if someone sees you and calls LE, you probably will end up getting arrested for something!   Anyone disagree?

I don't see how one could get into legal trouble for open carrying on his/her own land/property.  I don't see mowing my lawn with my XD holstered in the open could be illegal.

It's called disturbing the peace.

Not in my yard it's not.

AB

[Drylok]

[quote name='abolt243' date='25 July 2011 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1311647443' post='284117']
[quote name='TTIN' date='25 July 2011 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1311646899' post='284113']
[quote name='Davey' date='25 July 2011 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1311646584' post='284112']
[quote name='TomKoz' date='25 July 2011 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1311645152' post='284108']
Technically, you can (assuming you have your FOID card on you) open carry on while on your land. BUT, if someone sees you and calls LE, you probably will end up getting arrested for something! Anyone disagree?
[/quote]


I don't see how one could get into legal trouble for open carrying on his/her own land/property. I don't see mowing my lawn with my XD holstered in the open could be illegal.
[/quote]

It's called disturbing the peace.
[/quote]


Not in my yard it's not.

AB
[/quote]

Ditto

[Getzapped]

I understand all that, I was just referring to the motions that were filed.

[Davey]

So what's the next step for Shepard vs. Madigan?  Oral arguments or have those already passed?

[Tvandermyde]

We will see what the judge wants to do. He could order suplimental briefs, he could hold a hearing, he could rule as is. Lets see what the week holds for us.

There is a motion for discovery by the defendants

There is their motion to dismiss

There is our motion for an injunction

The judge has to wade through all these issues. he could deny the discovery, deny the motion to dismiss and just rule from the bench. Or we have some hearings and more briefs on each of the issues one at a time.

Right now, we just need to see how the Judge wants to handle things. There is a lot goign on.

[Tvandermyde]

Brady's filed their moption and brief....

Attached Files

•  Brady motion.pdf   20.58K   116 downloads
•  Brady_brief.pdf   123.92K   122 downloads

[drdoom]

It's ironic they mention 'militia' activity, given that it's ILLEGAL to participate in one (at least that's how I read it, but then the states law is trumped by USC 10). They mention much about not being able to carry weapons in England, but that's more or less because of the game act and several pesky municipalities (Northampton specifically) during the period. Pistols were carried by the majority of citizens in Britain (especially during the years leading to and after the turn of the 19th century). The state really f'd this one up. I found this blog to be of interest http://englandcallin...ons-in-england/