26 replies to this topic

[laststate2havecarry]

Well...now that the Shephard case has been dismissed.  I feel like we are years away from any any progress.  The only way CCW in Illinois will ever see the light of day will be with a SCOTUS decision.  Feel like changing my illinoiscarry name to ONLYSTATEWITHOUTCARRYEVER.  If the pres gets re-elected or not probably makes no difference now.  The SCOTUS is going liberal no matter what.  Romney isn't going to put another Roberts or Alito on the court.  BO sure as heck isn't going to appoint a 2nd Amendment friend.  So unless we are able to turn the tide on our own, with a new governor, and better legislators, CCW in Illinois is forever DEAD.  In Illinois "We the people" doesn't exist, just "we the minions of Chicago Liberalcrats". Had to rant for a bit...now lets kick some rear come election day.

[Don Gwinn]

Do me a favor and read this (the whole thing; it's really not long.)  Then, when you're ready to jump back in and fight the good fight, let's go.

http://web.archive.o...s.net/ccw03.htm

[Davey]

There's no crying in baseball.

[bob]

These things have a life of their own that might surprise you. There has been a lot of momentum building for the 2A for a long time. I think it will spill over into IL eventually.

If we had won either court case it was never likely that it would have been suddenly legal for the average law abiding citizen to strap on his 6 shooter and go about his business. The cases have to play out and the thing that really matters court wise is what SCOTUS says. While it is frustrating, I think in the long run letting it play out in the courts is something that just has to happen, even if it means we get nothing for a few more years. These cases might be our best shots at getting an unambiguous SCOTUS ruling that accepts the 2A has having standing beyond one's front door.

We badly need SCOTUS to say the 2A applies outside the home and use something approaching strict scrutiny.

[willxjcherokee]

Davey, on 01 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

There's no crying in baseball.

but but but

[oneshot]

Davey, on 01 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

There's no crying in baseball.

[Davey]

bob, on 02 April 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

We badly need SCOTUS to say the 2A applies outside the home and use something approaching strict scrutiny.

I often think to myself that it needs to be written very specifically with no wiggle room.  None of this "most notable inside the home" BS.  I swear, if I hear that phrase or "any weapon whatsoever for whatever reason" I'm gonna punch the nearest puppy.  There's no puppies in my house but I guarantee you I WILL find one.

[chicago]

laststate2havecarry, on 01 April 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Well...now that the Shephard case has been dismissed.  I feel like we are years away from any any progress.  The only way CCW in Illinois will ever see the light of day will be with a SCOTUS decision.  Feel like changing my illinoiscarry name to ONLYSTATEWITHOUTCARRYEVER.  If the pres gets re-elected or not probably makes no difference now.  The SCOTUS is going liberal no matter what.  Romney isn't going to put another Roberts or Alito on the court.  BO sure as heck isn't going to appoint a 2nd Amendment friend.  So unless we are able to turn the tide on our own, with a new governor, and better legislators, CCW in Illinois is forever DEAD.  In Illinois "We the people" doesn't exist, just "we the minions of Chicago Liberalcrats". Had to rant for a bit...now lets kick some rear come election day.

I totally understand your frustrations but aren't we only a few weeks away from possibly scoring a super-majority on HB's 148 & 5745???

[TyGuy]

I wholeheartedly disagree.  There is crying, at least welling up with tears, in baseball.  You obviously have never had a ball take a strange hop into your groin while playing.  No I did not wear a cup.  I never could stand those things.  

I get discouraged from time to time, but if the good men do nothing.....

[Uncle Harley]

TyGuy, on 02 April 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

I wholeheartedly disagree.  There is crying, at least welling up with tears, in baseball.  You obviously have never had a ball take a strange hop into your groin while playing.  No I did not wear a cup.  I never could stand those things.  

I get discouraged from time to time, but if the good men do nothing.....

Ha Ha  I was a Catcher for a couple of yrs and could not stand wearing a cup.   Let me tell you there IS crying in baseball, ............ like a little girl crying.

[scough]

chicago, on 02 April 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

laststate2havecarry, on 01 April 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Well...now that the Shephard case has been dismissed.  I feel like we are years away from any any progress.  The only way CCW in Illinois will ever see the light of day will be with a SCOTUS decision.  Feel like changing my illinoiscarry name to ONLYSTATEWITHOUTCARRYEVER.  If the pres gets re-elected or not probably makes no difference now.  The SCOTUS is going liberal no matter what.  Romney isn't going to put another Roberts or Alito on the court.  BO sure as heck isn't going to appoint a 2nd Amendment friend.  So unless we are able to turn the tide on our own, with a new governor, and better legislators, CCW in Illinois is forever DEAD.  In Illinois "We the people" doesn't exist, just "we the minions of Chicago Liberalcrats". Had to rant for a bit...now lets kick some rear come election day.

I totally understand your frustrations but aren't we only a few weeks away from possibly scoring a super-majority on HB's 148 & 5745???

I guess my concern is, many of the Nayers from the HB0148 vote last year received the threat that litigation is going to ram it down their throats, so they better cooperate or get something far worse. Shepard in many situation was touted as THE perfect sympathic case, and I wonder to what degree some of those former Nayers who were leaning more our way now to retain some control, may breathe a sigh of relief that they've got nothing to worry about now. These guys know they now have another year or two at the least before there is any risk of the courts changing anything drastic, so the urgency to cooperate is gone. Besides, I think the entire Democratic party is of the opinion that once Obama get re-elected, there will be a major shift in the guns right war, capped by a liberal majority on the SCOTUS. Then they hope to rein in alot of what we've won in the last 20 years. Then this all becomes academic. Sad stuff for sure.

[Tvandermyde]

we didnt win Heller at the district court level.

we didn't win McDonald at the district or appealate court level.

We didn't win Ezell at the district court level.

Yes it is dissappointing. But it is not the end of the road.

It is part of the process. And we are appealing and we will continue. kinda like Puralator pay me know or pay me later

[papa]

scough , I have to disagree with your comments. I think they are still very worried about the way it will go. Like Todd said , we didn't win any of our other cases at the district level and the other side knows that when the cases moved upwards in the system , we won .

I think they would much rather have some control over the carry requirements as to take a chance of having none because of a court ruling.

[Buzzard]

scough, on 02 April 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

I guess my concern is, many of the Nayers from the HB0148 vote last year received the threat that litigation is going to ram it down their throats, so they better cooperate or get something far worse. Shepard in many situation was touted as THE perfect sympathic case, and I wonder to what degree some of those former Nayers who were leaning more our way now to retain some control, may breathe a sigh of relief that they've got nothing to worry about now. These guys know they now have another year or two at the least before there is any risk of the courts changing anything drastic, so the urgency to cooperate is gone. Besides, I think the entire Democratic party is of the opinion that once Obama get re-elected, there will be a major shift in the guns right war, capped by a liberal majority on the SCOTUS. Then they hope to rein in alot of what we've won in the last 20 years. Then this all becomes academic. Sad stuff for sure.

I just want everyone to read that part in bold red. I'm not saying it's gonna happen - I just want everyone to think about that for awhile.

[colt-45]

papa, on 02 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

scough , I have to disagree with your comments. I think they are still very worried about the way it will go. Like Todd said , we didn't win any of our other cases at the district level and the other side knows that when the cases moved upwards in the system , we won .

I think they would much rather have some control over the carry requirements as to take a chance of having none because of a court ruling.

i agree with todd and papa, they are still worried more now than ever cause it's moving faster up the court's than they thought.IMO

[Drylok]

Isn't it fair to say that it wouldn't have mattered what the outcome from this particular court in this particular case because it would have been appealed anyway?

[bob]

In any case, there are some cases we have won lately in district courts that are more or less on point.


We are not going to win every case in the lower courts. We won't win all of them in the appeals courts. We won't win all of them at SCOTUS either.But we probably need to win the next case that makes it to SCOTUS, whatever one it ends up being.



Some commentary at Volokh

Edited by bob, 02 April 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[scough]

I think the point I'm trying to make is, to me at least, it's crystal clear what the Liberal Anti-Gun party's game plan is all about. They are stringing things along to avoid any major SCOTUS decision in our favor. Obama is going to avoid breathing anything about 2A during the upcoming election season, which would jeopardize the support of the Democratic 2A supporters out there like Belercous to ensure a second term. The Republican party is in shambles, and they smell blood.

Once elected, it will be an all out war to roll everything back to the 2A repression of 70's and early 80's, and worse. The end game is obviously to change the power and make up of the SCOTUS and then allow these cases to move forward and win decisive presidence setting judgements against 2A rights that will be virtually impossible to overcome in our lifetimes. These retards really, truly believe that the 2A should be rescinded, and the entire population stripped of guns, period. To them, the only reasonable compromise is some leadway for long arms for very regulated hunting. All handguns in their feable minds is the basis of all evil, and they will do everything they can to ban them.

Whether they can actually accomplish this all remains to be seen, but don't doubt their warped Utopian vision and strategy.

My .02 fwiw.

[milq]

scough, on 03 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Once elected, it will be an all out war to roll everything back to the 2A repression of 70's and early 80's, and worse. The end game is obviously to change the power and make up of the SCOTUS and then allow these cases to move forward and win decisive presidence setting judgements against 2A rights that will be virtually impossible to overcome in our lifetimes. These retards really, truly believe that the 2A should be rescinded, and the entire population stripped of guns, period. To them, the only reasonable compromise is some leadway for long arms for very regulated hunting. All handguns in their feable minds is the basis of all evil, and they will do everything they can to ban them.

I'd like to think that Americans won't let that stand (further stripping of rights) but so manyseem to be apathetic and ignorant of what is going on around them they'll never notice.

[4thestars]

milq, on 03 April 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

scough, on 03 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Once elected, it will be an all out war to roll everything back to the 2A repression of 70's and early 80's, and worse. The end game is obviously to change the power and make up of the SCOTUS and then allow these cases to move forward and win decisive presidence setting judgements against 2A rights that will be virtually impossible to overcome in our lifetimes. These retards really, truly believe that the 2A should be rescinded, and the entire population stripped of guns, period. To them, the only reasonable compromise is some leadway for long arms for very regulated hunting. All handguns in their feable minds is the basis of all evil, and they will do everything they can to ban them.

I'd like to think that Americans won't let that stand (further stripping of rights) but so manyseem to be apathetic and ignorant of what is going on around them they'll never notice.

I'll keep doing what I can to reduce apathy and ignorance by introducing as many new folks to handgun shooting as I possibly can. Especially women who may not have grown up around guns. The more folks we can get into the shooting sports, the better we can combat the so-called "common sense" BS that antis use to convince folks that gun control is okay as long as it doesn't take away hunting.

[Xwing]

Drylok, on 02 April 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Isn't it fair to say that it wouldn't have mattered what the outcome from this particular court in this particular case because it would have been appealed anyway?

It would be appealed anyway. But it does matter. When a court comes up specifically with "within the home", it gives the anti's more ammo to make that the de-facto interpretation of the 2nd amendment.  It’s what they’ve been pushing for a while.  They know they can’t get their true goal (illumination of all legal firearms), so they keep saying that the 2a applies only within the home.  The more people who spout this lie, the more who may believe it.

[drdoom]

If it is a pre-existing right, I don't care how bad it gets (and I don't want the worst to come true). (sarcasm) The day they start making the second amendment illegal is the day we start buying guns the Chicago way (sarcasm off).

[Gray Peterson]

Concur with Todd here.  Stop whining.

[Gray Peterson]

scough, on 03 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

I think the point I'm trying to make is, to me at least, it's crystal clear what the Liberal Anti-Gun party's game plan is all about. They are stringing things along to avoid any major SCOTUS decision in our favor. Obama is going to avoid breathing anything about 2A during the upcoming election season, which would jeopardize the support of the Democratic 2A supporters out there like Belercous to ensure a second term. The Republican party is in shambles, and they smell blood.

Once elected, it will be an all out war to roll everything back to the 2A repression of 70's and early 80's, and worse. The end game is obviously to change the power and make up of the SCOTUS and then allow these cases to move forward and win decisive presidence setting judgements against 2A rights that will be virtually impossible to overcome in our lifetimes. These retards really, truly believe that the 2A should be rescinded, and the entire population stripped of guns, period. To them, the only reasonable compromise is some leadway for long arms for very regulated hunting. All handguns in their feable minds is the basis of all evil, and they will do everything they can to ban them.

Whether they can actually accomplish this all remains to be seen, but don't doubt their warped Utopian vision and strategy.

My .02 fwiw.

28th Article of Amendment:

Section 1. The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry,transfer and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be infringed upon or denied. Mandatory licensing, registration, or special taxation as a condition of the exercise of this right is prohibited, and any other restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Section 2. This amendment shall apply to all governments, agencies, & offices thereto, including state and local government.

Section 3.  Any person or corporation shall be considered to have met a "case or controversy" under Article III to challenge laws and regulations purporting to regulate the right as described in section 1.   A person or corporation shall be entitled to damages, fees for challenging regulations under this article of amendment. No government being challenged may be entitled to costs, fees, or damages, even if they prevail.

Section 4.  The following justices of the supreme court, deciding incorrectly on a previous case or controversy involving the second article of amendment, shall be removed from office by operation of this amendment, and shall never be allowed to hold an office of trust or profit under the united states, any state or local government, or any territorial government:..........

[miztic]

Don Gwinn, on 01 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Do me a favor and read this (the whole thing; it's really not long.)  Then, when you're ready to jump back in and fight the good fight, let's go.

http://web.archive.o...s.net/ccw03.htm

That was a great read, thanks for posting that.
I had no idea that much went into getting carry passed, I'm learning a lot about how politics work on this forum

[drdoom]

Missouri is different, they DON'T have Chicago politics to contend with. Chicago politicians are easy to buy, but difficult to persuade. I can't wait to see when we pull our bill up for a vote (and the next time Achevedo pulls the cop speech, can someone please ask him if he carries a gun?)

[SFC Stu]

Don Gwinn, on 01 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Do me a favor and read this (the whole thing; it's really not long.)  Then, when you're ready to jump back in and fight the good fight, let's go.

http://web.archive.o...s.net/ccw03.htm

I know the major players in the long battle for Missouri License To Carry. John Ross is correct. We must continue the fight! Who you vote for makes a huge difference. Never bad mouth a friendly Legislator!