83 replies to this topic

[Getzapped]

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.

[Uncle Harley]

Getzapped, on 12 April 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

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.

[Milhouse86]

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.

[papa]

His writing style reminds me of someone else .

[kurt555gs]

Glad I stayed out of this one.

[Getzapped]

papa, on 12 April 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

His writing style reminds me of someone else .

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

[junglebob]

Uncle Harley, on 12 April 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

"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

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.

[Xwing]

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”.

[Gunslinger]

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.

[stm]

kurt555gs, on 12 April 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Glad I stayed out of this one.

+ 1

[mstrat]

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.

[vstar]

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


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

[Unanimous]

mstrat, on 13 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

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

[Gunslinger]

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.

[Black Flag]

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.

[Jonnie Knuckles]

Black Flag, on 13 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

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 ^

[wilessiuc]

Unanimous, on 13 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

mstrat, on 13 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

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.

[Black Flag]

wilessiuc, on 13 April 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

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.

[BadWaterBill]

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

[JackTripper]

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

[pyre400]

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.

[ishmo]

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.

Unanimous, on 13 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

mstrat, on 13 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

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

[Unanimous]

Getzapped, on 12 April 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

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

Gunslinger, on 13 April 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

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.

JackTripper, on 13 April 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

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

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

[Unanimous]

mstrat, on 13 April 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

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

[colt-45]

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.

[Unanimous]

Wow!  haven't laughed that much in awhile

thanks!!

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

[Molly B.]

Unanimous, on 22 April 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

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?

[Unanimous]

wilessiuc, on 12 April 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

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.

[Molly B.]

Unanimous, on 13 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

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.

[Unanimous]

Molly B., on 13 May 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Unanimous, on 13 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

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