What was meant by "every couple of weeks" is that someone thinks they have found a loophole in Illinois law!
Edited by Getzapped, 12 April 2012 - 09:38 PM.
Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:40 PM
Just curious why you have an attorney? Are you going to attempt to challenge this?
What was meant by "every couple of weeks" is that someone thinks they have found a loophole in Illinois law!
Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:00 PM
Edited by Milhouse86, 12 April 2012 - 10:04 PM.
Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:51 PM
Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:15 PM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:16 AM
"transporting the weapon to either the range, a hunt or a gunsmith, etc. This would NOT include transporting it along with you on your everyday routine to stores or to work or whatever."
A: Show me in the statute where it says that was it's intent. (They may very well been what the authors intended, but that is not what they wrote, and we cannont be expected to be mind readers! )
B: People vs. Bruner provides case law that states you are wrong! The felony case charge was overturnd, because her purse was considered a " case" the misdamenor charge of bringing a weapon into a federal building stayed and she was charged with that.
C: People vs Diggins, very CLEARLY states what is considered a " case " ( basically the websters deffinition of case)
D: The only statutes that specifically describe a case are contained within the wildlife code. You can only be charged with wildlife code violations durring activities involved with the taking of wild game. They do not apply to criminal cases.
Container "transport" ( carry ) is perfectly legal from the states standpoint, however there may or may not be local city ordinances against it.
Prove me wrong! And BTW I am not a liberal
Edited by junglebob, 13 April 2012 - 07:27 AM.
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrong doers should dominate just men. - Augustine
Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)
Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:32 AM
NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:56 AM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:33 AM
+ 1Glad I stayed out of this one.
yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .
Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:45 AM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:10 AM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:01 AM
I doubt anyone here could provide such an example. It was just much easier for them to bash someone trying to help out and provide some support to the community and possibly open their mind to a new potentially very valid argument that could possibly make those who would or do oppress think twice about their actionsIgnoring all the distractions and quibbles over presentation - I'd be curious to hear if anyone can provide any case law examples of the 18 Ch13 S 242 (I think you'd have a very hard time with 241) being used in any similar circumstances. This could provide an interesting discussion.
p.s. to Unanimous, this isn't the 13th amendment, but it could definitely be used to stop people from violating the 13th Amendment.
Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:23 AM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:37 AM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 12:09 PM
It's an interesting first post, but I think he's pulling it thru the water a little quickly.
I give it a 7.5.
"God creates all men equal... Once out of the womb, he starts playing favorites..."
"Sic vis pacem para bellum."
- If you want peace, prepare for war.
Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:00 PM
I doubt anyone here could provide such an example. It was just much easier for them to bash someone trying to help out and provide some support to the community and possibly open their mind to a new potentially very valid argument that could possibly make those who would or do oppress think twice about their actionsIgnoring all the distractions and quibbles over presentation - I'd be curious to hear if anyone can provide any case law examples of the 18 Ch13 S 242 (I think you'd have a very hard time with 241) being used in any similar circumstances. This could provide an interesting discussion.
p.s. to Unanimous, this isn't the 13th amendment, but it could definitely be used to stop people from violating the 13th Amendment.
I think my attorney was absolutely correct - apologies to the people who were providing constructive feedback but unfortunately on an open forum you are guaranteed to be subject to immature goofballs posting stupid posts and pictures
And to all the conspiracy theorists thinking I used to post here under another name/alias you are 100% wrong
Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:11 PM
As an attorney myself, I am curious as to why you were discussing the risks/benefits of forum posting with your attorney. All of your posts are not adding up.
Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:23 PM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:08 PM
Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:11 PM
__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution
Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:05 PM
I doubt anyone here could provide such an example. It was just much easier for them to bash someone trying to help out and provide some support to the community and possibly open their mind to a new potentially very valid argument that could possibly make those who would or do oppress think twice about their actionsIgnoring all the distractions and quibbles over presentation - I'd be curious to hear if anyone can provide any case law examples of the 18 Ch13 S 242 (I think you'd have a very hard time with 241) being used in any similar circumstances. This could provide an interesting discussion.
p.s. to Unanimous, this isn't the 13th amendment, but it could definitely be used to stop people from violating the 13th Amendment.
I doubt you or your attorney could provide an example either re the 2A unless you really stretched an interpretation of past decisions of what you're citing. As to your assertion that you're trying to open minds has it ever occurred to you that if there was any potential or validity to your idea or argument that the lawyers for the NRA, SAF and ISRA would have used it before now at the SCOTUS and or lower Federal court levels or in the Shepard and Moore cases? Unless of course you think you and your lawyer are smarter than Gura, et al.
I think my attorney was absolutely correct - apologies to the people who were providing constructive feedback but unfortunately on an open forum you are guaranteed to be subject to immature goofballs posting stupid posts and pictures
For your sake I hope your lawyer isn't a 50+ year old retired aircraft mechanic with a B.S. in political Science from SIU-E and a J.D. from SLU School of Law.
And to all the conspiracy theorists thinking I used to post here under another name/alias you are 100% wrong
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:48 PM
What was meant by "every couple of weeks" is that someone thinks they have found a loophole in Illinois law!
No body is arguing your facts. We are simply saying you will get arrested if you do it.
haha good job... I think you may be a wizard!Second time he has mentioned the picture. Glad that it had the intended effect.
Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:30 PM
p.s. to Unanimous, this isn't the 13th amendment, but it could definitely be used to stop people from violating the 13th Amendment.
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:14 PM
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:19 PM
Edited by Unanimous, 22 April 2012 - 08:19 PM.
Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:34 PM
but they clearly have issue with my rationale. And yes I already know someone who tests this would be arrested for it, I don't recall ever saying you wouldn't be or expecting otherwise.
Posted 13 May 2012 - 08:40 PM
Since you mentioned you're a prosecutor I have an honest question for you.I am a prosecutor and I've read your post three times and my head hurts. While I agree with you that the 2nd amendment should be read to allow carry, at the present time Illinois courts and statutes do not allow for it. Throwing together some unrelated constitutional provisions and baiting liberals does not change that fact. Carry a loaded weapon and face a felony UUW charge.
Posted 13 May 2012 - 09:44 PM
Where does a state (any state) have the LEGAL right to create a law/ordinance that is in direct defiance of the federal bill of rights?
Posted 13 May 2012 - 09:50 PM
It works both ways. Anyone who upholds an illegal law can be charged with a crimeWhere does a state (any state) have the LEGAL right to create a law/ordinance that is in direct defiance of the federal bill of rights?
We don't believe a state does have a legal right to violate the U.S. Constitution, but states do it all the time - hence the U.S. Supreme Court and the many state laws that are challenged there. Illinois has done it with banning the right to carry. It's being challenged. In the meantime, anyone violating this illegal law can be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced for a felony crime.