Jump to content


Photo

Open Carry Legal in EVERY State. Someone prove me wrong


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
83 replies to this topic

#31 Getzapped

    Gunsmith Extraordinaire

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:36 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!

Edited by Getzapped, 12 April 2012 - 09:38 PM.

logoforum_zps0763fe59.png


#32 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,930 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

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!



I caught that attorney comment too......hmmmm? why would he need an attorney and then come on a pro gun website trying to call out liberals ??? Something smells funny.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#33 Milhouse86

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:00 PM

I think he is really on to something. He found the sacred 13th amendment that we have all been searching for our entire lives. He is a hero and should be praised as such!

Edited by Milhouse86, 12 April 2012 - 10:04 PM.

ATF took my guns and sold them to Mexican drug dealers.

#34 papa

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,091 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:51 PM

His writing style reminds me of someone else .:thumbsup:

#35 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,433 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:15 PM

Glad I stayed out of this one.
Kurt on G+

#36 Getzapped

    Gunsmith Extraordinaire

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:51 AM

His writing style reminds me of someone else .Posted Image



BINGO!! I thought the same thing, but i don't want to call anyone out!

logoforum_zps0763fe59.png


#37 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

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 Posted Image


I agree with Uncle Harley, when the "Safe Neighborhoods Act" was being debated the transporting of a firearm in a case while walking down the street was brought up and it passed. Nothing says you have to be going to a range while transporting or that you must be in a vehicle.

Like Getzapped, I'll chip in $5 if you want to open carry and get arrested. I'm sure Eric Holder will help you out since those arresting you will be violating the 13th amendment.

Welcome to Illinois Carry.

BTW, Opencarry.org used to list Illinois as a rural open carry state. That designation was dropped because Illinois prohibits in under Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons, but not under UUW laws. Test this out and I'll chip in $5 for this too. How can open carry be AUUW but not UUW? Only in Illinois I guess.

Edited by junglebob, 13 April 2012 - 07:27 AM.

Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

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)

#38 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,081 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:32 AM

Unanimous,
Welcome to the forum.


Those on this board know what the second amendment means, and the fact that a whole plethora of gun laws (in Illinois and elsewhere) are quite clearly unconstitutional. However, many of those in power disagree, and have the ability to force their warped interpretation of the 2nd amendment (currently “it only counts in the home” since the “it only applies to the state militia” argument got slapped down in “Heller”.) It is far from an “easy win”. We have several court cases working their way toward the S.C. I believe that one day the ruling will strike down these unconstitutional laws (such as the ones disallowing open carry), but it won’t be tomorrow, and it isn’t a “sure thing”.
NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)

#39 Gunslinger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:56 AM

Dude every person on here agrees with you that the constitution guarantees our right to carry a weapon. This is not the place your going to find an argument to that. Currently Illinois suppresses that right, we all know it's wrong and that's why we are here.
The Second Amendment IS my concealed weapons permit.... Period!-Ted Nugent

Example of Combat Logic:

Marine #1-"You can't just add zeros to the end of a 6 digit grid to make a 10 digit...."
Marine #2-"Sure you can, the GPS accepted it and now we are on our way!"

#40 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:33 AM

Glad I stayed out of this one.

+ 1

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#41 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:45 AM

Ignoring 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.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#42 vstar

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:10 AM

[quote name='papa' date='12 April 2012 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1334292666' post='322519']
His writing style reminds me of someone else .:brr:
[/quote


It certainly does! I took some good advice on the ignore button.

#43 Unanimous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:01 AM

Ignoring 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 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 actions

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

#44 Gunslinger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 12

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:23 AM

No body is arguing your facts. We are simply saying you will get arrested if you do it. If you have the financial means and an attorney willing to take your case go for it. There is always the slim chance the cop will shot you though. If you attempt and get arrested and you case looks winnable you can count on a small contribution from me. You might as well audio and video record while your at it since that is illegal as well but also ruled unconstitutional such as your original proposal.
The Second Amendment IS my concealed weapons permit.... Period!-Ted Nugent

Example of Combat Logic:

Marine #1-"You can't just add zeros to the end of a 6 digit grid to make a 10 digit...."
Marine #2-"Sure you can, the GPS accepted it and now we are on our way!"

#45 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:37 AM

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.

Posted Image


#46 Jonnie Knuckles

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 07

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.



I Lol'ed reading that ^ :brr:

"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.


#47 wilessiuc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:00 PM


Ignoring 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 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 actions

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


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.
"To Disarm The People - That Was The Best And Most Effectual Way To Enslave Them" - George Mason

ONE STATE - ONE LAW

#48 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

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.



It's just part of the treble hook that he used:
13th Amendment, dangling attorney, and slander of the forum members.

Posted Image


#49 BadWaterBill

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,532 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 08

Posted 13 April 2012 - 02:23 PM

Yup just another 14 year old trolling in our fish pond.

#50 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,000 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

Second time he has mentioned the picture. Glad that it had the intended effect.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#51 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,728 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 13 April 2012 - 03:11 PM

Its fine to be critical of the contents of the post, and to debate the facts/merits of what was posted - but we still must follow the code of conduct.

Please, no personal attacks...

Happy Friday.

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#52 ishmo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,603 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 05

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:05 PM

Nothing personal but I think you came here for one reason, to pick a fight. It's kind of amazing that you've managed to insult as many people as you have in the very short time you've been here, especially when you have no idea of the the level of education of the members here on this forum. Just curious but was this a class project, a thesis, or just to boost your own ego ? I'll reserve judgement on the troll possibility until later.

It's a pity for you that you only get one get one chance to make a good first impression on people. Jmho but you're an epic failure in that effort.


Ignoring 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 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 actions
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



#53 Unanimous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

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!


I honestly don't know whether I want to laugh or cry that you think I'm the one looking for a loophole.

Someone please show me where suddenly a state statute is legally allowed to supercede the bill of rights.

Anyone in the world with a copy of the dictionary can produce the accepted definition of the word bear

should seem to anyone that the only one looking for a loophole here is the people who enacted the Illinois statute. Well and arguably the proponents of fanny pack carry

No body is arguing your facts. We are simply saying you will get arrested if you do it.


unfortunately I believe they are. I will agree we all would like the same outcome 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.


Second time he has mentioned the picture. Glad that it had the intended effect.

haha good job... I think you may be a wizard!

#54 Unanimous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

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.


Let's also not forget Article 6, Clause 2 mandating state judges follow federal law if there were to be a conflict

#55 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:14 PM

how about this if you already know you can carry open or concealed in Illinois than why come on here and say prove me wrong about it. you know you can't carry open or concealed in Illinois it's the law. i don't care what laws you think you know but these guys on here know the law of Illinois.

#56 Unanimous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

Posted 22 April 2012 - 08:19 PM

Wow! haven't laughed that much in awhile

thanks!!

Edited by Unanimous, 22 April 2012 - 08:19 PM.


#57 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,649 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

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.


I don't have a problem with your rationale but I do with your manner. Please read the code of conduct, especially the part about insults, argumentative lanuage and baiting.

And we all know that states pass laws all the time that try to trump the U.S. Constitution, hence all the challenges that make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. We've been fighting one here in Illinois for decades. Really, what is your point?
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#58 Unanimous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

Posted 13 May 2012 - 08:40 PM

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.

Since you mentioned you're a prosecutor I have an honest question for you.

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?

I find this difficult to impossible to believe that as a prosecutor you can come up with a real answer to this, especially given the clear and definitive nature of federal preemption. But I'll keep an open mind for now.

#59 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,649 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

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?


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.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#60 Unanimous

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 12

Posted 13 May 2012 - 09:50 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?


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.

It works both ways. Anyone who upholds an illegal law can be charged with a crime