68 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

ok now I am Pi$$ed after more than anhour of trying to copy and paste a message into this I give up.

I write my longer pieces in word for spell check then usually paste them over into the message. for some reason it is not working this time so I have it attached. If one of the mods could delete this part of the message and paste my commnets here instead I would be greatful.


@@#$@#$%$$% now it says I cant't upload a word docx ! ! @@##$^%^%%^@#!@!#@#$^%&^&%$^%^

Todd

[mauserme]

Attached ?

[05FLHT]

Sorry, Todd. I had to laugh a little at your post. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[Tvandermyde]

I going drinking, at least I can figure out a bottle opener

[mauserme]

Here you go.  Let me know if there are any formatting issues.

Tvandermyde tried to say, on 09 June 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Well after yesterday’s oral arguments a lot of people as asking what is next.

Good question. Short answer I don’t know. There are many paths this could take. Let me explore a couple of them.

First is we loose the appeal, we are then still in the driver seat and appeal to SCOTUS directly. They can take it or not. If not we loose. If they take it, and we win Good for us. Or they could take it and we loose, doubtful.

We win appeal – good on it’s face but we loose control of the case at this point. The AG could ask for an en banc review by the full court of appeals which we may get a decision sometime in the fall.

That however puts pressure on the legislature to act – more on that later.

Or the AG could appeal straight to SCOTUS, in this case if they decline we win. Or they could take it and rule in our favor, again we win. Or on the outside chance they could take it, and rule against us. 66% chance of our side winning in this situation.

Or we win, the case is remanded, the AG does not appeal and we start again at the district court and face 2-5 more years of litigation. Again we loose control of the case.

In another post I urged people to contact their state reps and senators and tell them that we will not accept a “bad” carry bill. By bad I mean a bill that carves out geographic regions like Chicago or Cook County. Or a bill that allows towns and cities to set all their own rules.



Any bill that passes must have a STRONG preemption clause.

Reasonable training requirements.

Reasonable time place and manner restrictions.

Reasonable fees and time lines for processing.



Why is all this important, because we could get jammed in some peoples haste to pass any carry bill that would help “their” constituents out.



We get a 71 vote rule requirement because of the Speakers interpretation of the State Constitution. A bill with no preemption, that would allow Oak Park, Chicago and anyone else to set all their own rules including a ban on carrying, would only need 60 votes.

So some crafty Chicago legislator could write a may issue no preemption bill with all kinds of fees and restrictions like good cause, and such and only need 60 votes to pass it. Our job is to hold all of our votes. By doing so we block bad carry bills.

For any of those legislators who worry about voting against a “bad” carry bill, our message is simple, are you going to listen to your constituents? Or the Mayor of Chicago? Because that will be the message we take to our members, when Rahm says jump, you say how high.



With a favorable ruling, we are in the driver’s seat legislatively. And we will be drafting a revised bill yet again. But we need all of you to call your reps and senators and tell them – NO BAD CARRY BILL! ! !

There is talk of the legislature coming back for a special session on pensions. If they do, they can also re-open the regular session of the general assembly and anything there is on the table. So a bill can come up.

Now a bill that passes after May 31 with an immediate effective date requires 71 vote in the house and 36 in the senate. However, a non-preemption bill that has an effective date of June 1 2013 only needs 60 and 30.

We have our work cut out for us. Listen to the audio and revel in the tone of the judges in anticipation of a positive ruling. Keeping our fingers crossed. But Monday we all need to be calling our state reps and senators and make it clear, we the gun owns will write and approve of the carry bill, not Chicago, not Cook County, not the President of the Senate. It’s our bill, our issue, our rights.

And when someone says jump, our response is going to be for them to head to the nearest cliff.

Edited by mauserme, 09 June 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[abolt243]

Thanks Mauser!!  I was just headed here to muddle through it.  Glad an expert got ahold of it first!!

Good Comments Todd!!  Enjoy the weekend.

Tim

[Gary]

IMO one of the most important things that the final bill should have is protection for someone who makes a mistake and wanders into a "prohibited" place.  If making a mistake is a criminal act then, at the very least, the firearm will be lost regardless of the penalty involved.

[Getzapped]

So, we have no idea what is gonna happen?  My guess is

Quote

Or we win, the case is remanded, the AG does not appeal and we start again at the district court and face 2-5 more years of litigation. Again we loose control of the case.

  This seems the most likely path Illinois will take!  this way we will be without a carry bill for another 2-5 years!

[billzfx4]

Getzapped, on 09 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

So, we have no idea what is gonna happen?  My guess is

Quote

Or we win, the case is remanded, the AG does not appeal and we start again at the district court and face 2-5 more years of litigation. Again we loose control of the case.

  This seems the most likely path Illinois will take!  this way we will be without a carry bill for another 2-5 years!

I'm trying very hard to be optimistic, but given the political climate of this state I can see this happening.
We win the case and still get screwed.

[Mr. Fife]

I missed the scenario where we get Constitutional Carry.    

[ishmo]

Mr. Fife, on 09 June 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I missed the scenario where we get Constitutional Carry.

Just curious but how did you get to a Constitutional Carry scenario from Todd's post?  

[Mr. Fife]

ishmo, on 09 June 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Mr. Fife, on 09 June 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I missed the scenario where we get Constitutional Carry.

Just curious but how did you get to a Constitutional Carry scenario from Todd's post?  

I didn't. I'm saying I didn't hear it mentioned as an option.

[Johnnybgood]

Of course the judges have to remand the case don't they? So if the tone of the court is as described I am going to be optimistic and say we win, we get our injunction, and we have carry this year. Bud this is for you!

[Getzapped]

You are a very optimistic person mr peterson!!  I don't appreciate you telling me to shut up either!  You and i both know this state will do whatever they can to avoid this!!!

[Davey]

Dayem, Mauserme to the rescue.

[Tvandermyde]

some feel that when the Court rules the current ban on carrying in public unconsitutional, that we automatically go to consitutional carry. That would depend on the Court issuing an injunction of some sort against applying the UUW or AG-UUW statutes to someone who is carrying with a FOID or as a non-resident, not prohibited under federal law.

I doubt that there will be an injunction right away. And while the law maybe unconsitutional, the legislature will stepp in to fix it. There is no way politically, that we are going to go from the last state to get RTC to Arizona overnight. Even some of our most committeed friends in the legislature are not ready to support permitless  carry.

The question is how long can we hold them together to get a Florida style law.

[abolt243]

Todd, you keep talking about a Florida style law.  No doubt, I'd take it in a heart beat, but there's some tweaking that can be done to it in a place or two.

[Jeckler]

http://www.usacarry....nformation.html

What are the pros - cons of a "Florida style" law?

[NakPPI]

Florida style is great, so long as you aren't penalized for accidentally exposing your weapon.

Florida= finger print, live fire, background check, class. (NRA basic pistol course)

With permit = no stadiums, no hospitals, no bars, no condo meetIngs (remember its Florida). Gun can be anywhere In your car so long as its concealed.

No permit = loaded, in a holster in glove box is ok

Obviously more to it than that,  but those are the highlights.

Edited by NakPPI, 10 June 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[05FLHT]

Off the top of my head -

Pros- shall issue, reasonable training, reasonable renewal fee, and no permit needed to carry in a vehicle.

Cons - it could a lifetime permit (or no permit needed), no open carry allowed, and brandishing (or even seeing the outline through clothing) is a serious problem.

[05FLHT]

NakPPI beat me to it. I type too slow in the morning.

Also - now I have the problem where I can't edit.

[RandyP]

forgive me for a fool, but I've reread this post three times now this morning, with and without coffee, and it still leaves my tired old brain weary. Reminds me of the Groucho/Chico routine - Why a Duck?

It sounds to my unenlightened mind that there are far more ways we can end up the screw-ee than we could be the screw-or and having watched the results of noble efforts over the past several years my realist hat anticipates that option mentioned where the can gets kicked down the road for a good 2-5 years..... Illinois legislators ADORE kicking cans down the road.

Edited by RandyP, 10 June 2012 - 07:13 AM.

[Tvandermyde]

Randy -- there are several paths this can go. Our job is to anticipate them and head them off.

I don't sugar coat a lot of things and want all here to be informed of possibilities/ that way we can go into this eyes wide open and take the appropriate action. We thik better tactically, strategicly than the other side.

The only one who is better at it is Madigan. But we will soon see.

[JackTripper]

Tvandermyde, on 10 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

The only one who is better at it is Madigan. But we will soon see.

I just wish I understood why he cares so much about this issue.
He does not strike me as a "bleeding heart liberal".
I think the politically expedient move would have been for him to drop this banner, post Daley.

[Talonap]

My thinking is, when we end up going to the GA, we should stick to HB2539, (hope I got that right - the new CC bill?). With all the talk of , change this, change that..., we may at some point loose the support of the votes we already have if we try to go too far right away. Just saying....

Edited by Talonap, 10 June 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[chicago]

Tvandermyde tried to say, on 09 June 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

In another post I urged people to contact their state reps and senators and tell them that we will not accept a “bad” carry bill. By bad I mean a bill that carves out geographic regions like Chicago or Cook County. Or a bill that allows towns and cities to set all their own rules.

Any bill that passes must have a STRONG preemption clause.

Why is all this important, because we could get jammed in some peoples haste to pass any carry bill that would help “their” constituents out.

We get a 71 vote rule requirement because of the Speakers interpretation of the State Constitution. A bill with no preemption, that would allow Oak Park, Chicago and anyone else to set all their own rules including a ban on carrying, would only need 60 votes.

So some crafty Chicago legislator could write a may issue no preemption bill with all kinds of fees and restrictions like good cause, and such and only need 60 votes to pass it. Our job is to hold all of our votes. By doing so we block bad carry bills.

For any of those legislators who worry about voting against a “bad” carry bill, our message is simple, are you going to listen to your constituents? Or the Mayor of Chicago? Because that will be the message we take to our members, when Rahm says jump, you say how high.

With a favorable ruling, we are in the driver’s seat legislatively. And we will be drafting a revised bill yet again. But we need all of you to call your reps and senators and tell them – NO BAD CARRY BILL! ! !

Todd, I just wanted to say thank you for taking such a strong position on a carry bill that can't exclude Chicago's right to carry. It was such a relief to read this. There are many 2nd amendment supporters that live and or work in Chicago who desperately need the right to self defense. Overwhelmingly Chicago is where the violent crime is in Illinois.  Again, thank you!!!

[Talonap]

JackTripper, on 10 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 10 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

The only one who is better at it is Madigan. But we will soon see.

I just wish I understood why he cares so much about this issue.
He does not strike me as a "bleeding heart liberal".
I think the politically expedient move would have been for him to drop this banner, post Daley.

I think it's because he wants to have as much control of the people as possible. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Don't worry, I'll take care of everytrhing..."

[chicago]

Talonap, on 10 June 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

JackTripper, on 10 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 10 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

The only one who is better at it is Madigan. But we will soon see.

I just wish I understood why he cares so much about this issue.
He does not strike me as a "bleeding heart liberal".
I think the politically expedient move would have been for him to drop this banner, post Daley.

I think it's because he wants to have as much control of the people as possible. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Don't worry, I'll take care of everytrhing..."

It's a voter base thing. Simple math. Nothing personal.

Edited by chicago, 10 June 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Mr. Fife]

JackTripper, on 10 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

I just wish I understood why he cares so much about this issue.

He's probably paid to do so by the Joyce Foundation or other similar group of busybodies.

[bob]

Getzapped, on 09 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

So, we have no idea what is gonna happen?  My guess is

Quote

Or we win, the case is remanded, the AG does not appeal and we start again at the district court and face 2-5 more years of litigation. Again we loose control of the case.

  This seems the most likely path Illinois will take!  this way we will be without a carry bill for another 2-5 years!

I don't know that this is the "most" likely situation, but it does seem as likely as any at this point. If we win at the appeals court level, it is completely reasonable for the appeals court to have a lower court take a look at what the win might actually entail prior to creating some kind of injunction.

The way I see it is there are 4 or 5 roughly equally likely paths this thing could take at this point, and none of them end up with the courts enforcing any kind of carry on IL any time real soon, but do put some pressure on the legislature. Whether that pressure is enough to get a reasonable LTC passed is something else. It certainly is not going to be enough on its own. But, as part of the pressure being applied it may be enough to get a bill passed.

There are several paths that end up with us getting nothing that seem unlikely to me. I think even if we lose in court we eventually get LTC in IL. There is enough momentum built up at this point that eventually it is going to happen.

Edited by bob, 10 June 2012 - 09:07 AM.