339 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

Dave -- I doubt it. No matter who wins, the district court it will be appealed, then who knows from there.

I would expect that we have some direction from the appellate court by feb 1

[samy12386]

soundguy, on 26 July 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

Buzzard, on 26 July 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

Kipp Jones, on 26 July 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

Does the Second Amendment not apply to the homeless? Their home is the street! Why is no one making this argument?

I've wondered that ever since you first brought it up. Perhaps it has not been suggested to those arguing these cases.

Possibly, because as much as we love the homeless and value their contributions to our personal societal circles be they mentally ill Regan era asylum rejects or recent victims of the recession ... Yeah...  Kinda way under the radar and unsympathetic to most of America.  

It would be interesting if those who were without a home and couldn't afford arms or training were recognized as being able to keep and bear arms wherever they were.

This is not my point of view, I believe everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.... Period! But right now there is no politician who wants to start a campaigne to "arm homeless people" I mean really there is no way to go about that without hurting our cause

[scout26]

bob, on 19 July 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

NakPPI, on 19 July 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

There is also an equal protection argument to invalidate FOID, the act it's really just a poll tax by a different name.

There has been an argument made that requiring state ID to vote violates one's right to vote because it costs money to get a state ID card. Don't recall just how far that argument got, but that would seem to be an on point analogy.

IIRC, The Supreme's upheld Indiana's Voter ID law, because you could get a State ID card for free.  A driver's license (remember driving is a privilege) they could charge for. Linky-Thingy

Like we would ever get a "No ID, No Vote" law passed here.  Well, with the way things are going with the 2A anything could be possible in this state.

[scout26]

Quote

Indeed, plaintiffs propose a vague injunction that allows all persons "qualified to possess firearms in Illinois" to carry firearms in public. Assuming that "qualified to possess" means possessing a FOID card (and plaintiffs do not otherwise define the term) plaintiffs' requested injunction would permit the carrying of any firearm by any person who possessed a FOID card without regard to their training or intent to use the weapon for crimes of violence, without regard to whether the person was intoxicated, and without limitation as to the nature of the public place.

They seem to be staking out a fall back position here, or perhaps giving the judge the parameters of the injunction/ruling.  Meaning that the judge will say "Bear means what it says, however I'll give you the limits you requested.  FOID holders only, maybe a training requirement, can't be intoxicated(i.e. or otherwise violating other laws) and not in "sensitive places", and you better have a darn good reason they are "sensitive".  

Which that a-hole in Tennessee could screw up for everyone.  Read about his antics here    However DO NOT TYPE HIS NAME ON THE FORUM.    He google searches himself and "pops-up" wherever his name is mentioned (he goes buy the handle of "k w i k r n u" (but without the spaces). Go ahead an Google his handle.     He then proceeds to be a jackwagon and troll the board until he is banned.  

Last I check he was banned from:
THR
GRM
TFL
Tenn GunOwners
Tenn FirearmsAssociation
OpenCarry
Glocktalk
AR-15.com
AK47
CalGuns
Kel-Tec Owners
SilencerTalk
M1911
Not one, but TWO Golden Retriever forums (How DO you get banned from not one but TWO Doggie Fora?)
(And there are others I'm sure)

Having read through several threads that participated in on those boards, He's the guy that is quietly saying "Fire" in a crowded theater on the grounds that USSC said you can't yell "Fire".

He's simply a troll, a tool, and publicity hound.  He's lucky that some cop hasn't shot him yet. That's his reason for the orange tip on the Draco, "Cops won't shoot me because it looks like a toy."

It's idiot gunowners like him that put the rest of us in a bad light.

[Sidartha]

scout26, on 04 August 2011 - 04:30 AM, said:

....

Which that a-hole in Tennessee could screw up for everyone.  Read about his antics here    However DO NOT TYPE HIS NAME ON THE FORUM.    He google searches himself and "pops-up" wherever his name is mentioned (he goes buy the handle of "k w i k r n u" (but without the spaces). Go ahead an Google his handle.     He then proceeds to be a jackwagon and troll the board until he is banned.  

....

He's simply a troll, a tool, and publicity hound.  He's lucky that some cop hasn't shot him yet. That's his reason for the orange tip on the Draco, "Cops won't shoot me because it looks like a toy."

It's idiot gunowners like him that put the rest of us in a bad light.

Don't kid yourself my friend.
Someone will do something stupid and there will be publicity because of it and some people will use that incident(whatever it is) to call for more regulations on whatever.

That dumb monkey the shot 14 people at Gabrielle Giffords event in Az proved that.
The typical voices called for the the typical things and nothing happened.

When, not if, but when someone commits a flap and it gets all the press repeat the line.
(S)He's in jail now, there is no good reason for my rights to be trampled because of it.

[Ocellairs]

[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]

In this county I wouldn't bet on it!

[scout26]

Sidartha, on 04 August 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

Don't kid yourself my friend.
Someone will do something stupid and there will be publicity because of it and some people will use that incident(whatever it is) to call for more regulations on whatever.

That dumb monkey the shot 14 people at Gabrielle Giffords event in Az proved that.
The typical voices called for the the typical things and nothing happened.

When, not if, but when someone commits a flap and it gets all the press repeat the line.
(S)He's in jail now, there is no good reason for my rights to be trampled because of it.

There's a difference between a complete looney shooting a bunch of people, and one of our friends/allies pushing the limits of the law because he thinks that he should have his "full" constitutional 2A rights RIGHT NOW!!!

He is deliberately poking his finger in the .gov eye and daring them to smack him down.  I mean seriously, after a contentious fight in TN to get parks removed from the "sensitive places" list, you go and paint your (AK47)Draco pistol camo colors, with an orange tip, and then walk around with it open carried (while dressed in camo) in a park full of soccer mommies and then get all butthurt when the park rangers prone you out at shotgun point, and then your even more butthurt that they didn't know right away that the AK47 looking gun you had on you met the legal definition of a pistol.  

So now, rather then accepting that a judge said "Dude, get over it." He's appealing (with himself as his lawyer, and you know what they about people who represent themselves in court)so we'll probably get a bad ruling on "Sensitive Places" out of the 6th Circuit.

And this is one of our so-called friends?

The squishy middle (that 40% that can go either way) sees antics like this and we lose them to the cause.  They see us and safe, responsible, normal people, we gain them to the cause.

[gangrel]

scout26, on 04 August 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

Sidartha, on 04 August 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:

Don't kid yourself my friend.
Someone will do something stupid and there will be publicity because of it and some people will use that incident(whatever it is) to call for more regulations on whatever.

That dumb monkey the shot 14 people at Gabrielle Giffords event in Az proved that.
The typical voices called for the the typical things and nothing happened.

When, not if, but when someone commits a flap and it gets all the press repeat the line.
(S)He's in jail now, there is no good reason for my rights to be trampled because of it.

There's a difference between a complete looney shooting a bunch of people, and one of our friends/allies pushing the limits of the law because he thinks that he should have his "full" constitutional 2A rights RIGHT NOW!!!

He is deliberately poking his finger in the .gov eye and daring them to smack him down.  I mean seriously, after a contentious fight in TN to get parks removed from the "sensitive places" list, you go and paint your (AK47)Draco pistol camo colors, with an orange tip, and then walk around with it open carried (while dressed in camo) in a park full of soccer mommies and then get all butthurt when the park rangers prone you out at shotgun point, and then your even more butthurt that they didn't know right away that the AK47 looking gun you had on you met the legal definition of a pistol.  

So now, rather then accepting that a judge said "Dude, get over it." He's appealing (with himself as his lawyer, and you know what they about people who represent themselves in court)so we'll probably get a bad ruling on "Sensitive Places" out of the 6th Circuit.

And this is one of our so-called friends?

The squishy middle (that 40% that can go either way) sees antics like this and we lose them to the cause.  They see us and safe, responsible, normal people, we gain them to the cause.

This guy sounds like PETA for guns...  

[Sidartha]

scout26, on 04 August 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

There's a difference between a complete looney shooting a bunch of people, and one of our friends/allies pushing the limits of the law because he thinks that he should have his "full" constitutional 2A rights RIGHT NOW!!!

He is deliberately poking his finger in the .gov eye and daring them to smack him down.  I mean seriously, after a contentious fight in TN to get parks removed from the "sensitive places" list, you go and paint your (AK47)Draco pistol camo colors, with an orange tip, and then walk around with it open carried (while dressed in camo) in a park full of soccer mommies and then get all butthurt when the park rangers prone you out at shotgun point, and then your even more butthurt that they didn't know right away that the AK47 looking gun you had on you met the legal definition of a pistol.  

So now, rather then accepting that a judge said "Dude, get over it." He's appealing (with himself as his lawyer, and you know what they about people who represent themselves in court)so we'll probably get a bad ruling on "Sensitive Places" out of the 6th Circuit.

And this is one of our so-called friends?

The squishy middle (that 40% that can go either way) sees antics like this and we lose them to the cause.  They see us and safe, responsible, normal people, we gain them to the cause.

Yes and no.
If you look back over every civil rights battle that has erupted in this country in the past century you will see a combination of rational, reasoned argument and offensive, disruptive behavior.
From the Pro-Union movement to woman's suffrage to the black civil rights groups in the 60's to the current gay rights movement.

Is this particular guy a twit?
Yep.
Is he an attention *****?
Most definitely.
Does he serve a useful purpose by desensitizing the public to things like open carry and "Evil Black Rifles"?
I think so.

However, at this point I think we are officially hijacking this thread so I'll stop.

[stm]

I see that the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgement on Monday. There is a memo in support of this motion listed, but I can't find where to download it. Any ideas?

http://ia700609.us.a...207.docket.html

Maybe they will have the download available here soon...

[NakPPI]

stm, on 10 August 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:

I see that the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgement on Monday. There is a memo in support of this motion listed, but I can't find where to download it. Any ideas?

http://ia700609.us.a...207.docket.html

Maybe they will have the download available here soon...

Memo In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

It's very well written.

[stm]

Thanks for finding and posting that! Your Google-fu is stronger than mine.

More great, logical arguments by the plaintiffs. I don't see how the judge could disagree, but I may be a little biased in my opinion.  ;-)

[colt-45]

very good read and well written.

[samy12386]

Do I smell constitional carry? maybe a case to be cited for other states? wouldn't that be irony if illinois became a model state for firearm laws?

[Sigma]

Wouldnt it be nice if Scotus sends Madigan and Quinn a letter saying "hey dummies we didnt say only in the home" How hard would it be for them to do that

[PPK]

Sigma, on 11 August 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Wouldnt it be nice if Scotus sends Madigan and Quinn a letter saying "hey dummies we didnt say only in the home" How hard would it be for them to do that

They just might get a letter like that! Not sure how much weight it will carry it it's postmarked from southern IL, though

[oneshot]

NakPPI, on 10 August 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

stm, on 10 August 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:

I see that the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgement on Monday. There is a memo in support of this motion listed, but I can't find where to download it. Any ideas?

http://ia700609.us.a...207.docket.html

Maybe they will have the download available here soon...

Memo In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

It's very well written.

Wow, I like being able to use it in Google Docs!  You can even save a copy!  Very nice!

[ishmo]

Sigma, on 11 August 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Wouldnt it be nice if Scotus sends Madigan and Quinn a letter saying "hey dummies we didnt say only in the home" How hard would it be for them to do that

Might be even nicer if the SCOTUS issued a warrant for their arrest for contempt of the court

[Tvandermyde]

colt-45, on 11 August 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

very good read and well written.

Glad you like it.

[BigJim]

What ever became of this?

[Tvandermyde]

we are awaiting the judge's decision. But like Moore, the State is dinking around.

Here is our motion in response to their motion for dissmissal.

Attached Files

•  40_-_response_to_state_motion_to_dismiss.pdf   1.21MB   160 downloads

[mstrat]

I'm reading through this response now... and wow. The state actually tried to claim that because of Heller, no courts can ever rule on 2nd Amendment claims involving rights outside the home?  Wow... just, wow. The balls on them.

Quote

Quote

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it ap-
proaches the confines of the constitution. ... With whatever doubts, with whatever
difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us.
We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than
to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the
constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot
avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously
to perform our duty.

Indeed, the Seventh Circuit in Ezell faulted the district court because it "identified but did not evaluate the Second Amendment merits question" at issue in that case.

Simply put, the State is wrong to suggest that district courts cannot - and must not - evaluate Second Amendment claims involving rights
outside the home. Precisely the opposite is true.

[stm]

I was just reading that part. They blasted the state for suggesting "restraint" and stated that it was the court's duty and obligation to make a proper ruling instead of avoiding the issue. That was the strongest part of the wonderful piece of writing. Gave me tingles.

[Stavros31]

Tvandermyde, on 16 August 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

we are awaiting the judge's decision. But like Moore, the State is dinking around.

Here is our motion in response to their motion for dissmissal.

"And Ilinois independently bans criminals, drug addicts, and the
mentally disabled from carrying guns, see 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(3)©; 430 ILCS 65/4, and it
independently bans carying paricularly dangerous and unusual weapons such as sawed-off
shotguns, see 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7). The practical effect of the ban is thus to take common
firears out of the hands of the law-abiding. As a logical matter, it is thus highly unlikely that
Ilinois's ban has any net positive effect on public safety. And the State's "logic" is even more suspect when considered along with every other State's decision to allow some form of carrying
firearms in public for self-defense. See Pl. SJ. Br. 1 n.1."

Are they challenging the state's ban on NFA firearms too? Or did I Miss read it?

[JackTripper]

@Stavros - You are misreading. NFA is not in scope.

[Stavros31]

JackTripper, on 17 August 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

@Stavros - You are misreading. NFA is not in scope.

I thought so, I found it interesting they put in a reference to NFA ban.

[abolt243]

Stavros31, on 17 August 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

JackTripper, on 17 August 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

@Stavros - You are misreading. NFA is not in scope.

I thought so, I found it interesting they put in a reference to NFA ban.

I think the point is that the state doesn't need UUW or AgUUW to keep guns out of the hands of Felons and the mentally challenged.  Nor does it to keep those evil "full auto" guns from law abiding citizens.  All UUW and AgUUW does is keep "commonly used firearms" out of the hands of law abiding citizens that they might need "in case of confrontation".

One step at a time.

AB

[lockman]

As far as NFA weapons go, They may still fall under 2a protection within the scope of militia service. 2A rights are recognized outside of militia service but certainly are not waived when used for militia service.

The state is still looking at Heller/Mc Donald decisions as if the NON-DICTA rational is irrelevant to apply to other cases. In doing so they also flatly ignore the 7th circuit court of appeals stern clarification to the contrary. Actually the "such as" wording in the finding should in itself toss the states argument into the trash heap.

[hardtoearn]

Plaintiff Response to the States Motion to Dismiss

[cshipley92]

hardtoearn, on 19 August 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

Plaintiff Response to the States Motion to Dismiss

Interesting reading.  I think the attorneys made their case plainly.  IMO, I think the issue will be getting the judge to rule instead of just passing the whole thing along to a higher court, but I must say the response laid out why he SHOULD rule, and in our favor, quite clearly.

Either way, I see this ending up in SCOTUS before it's all over.  Hopefully it won't take years to jump through all the legal hoops.  

Or perhaps the Dems here will finally see the writing on the wall and pass a concealed carry law.   

What was I thinking, that would require them to display a bit of common sense and intelligence.