All Activity

👍

On July 1 in appellate court, the court ordered further briefings based on Cook County's assertion that this case does not address the plaintiffs' claimed injuries. There are prohibitions against carry on public transit other than state law, but this case addresses only state law. The court also wants the briefs to address the applicability of the recent US Supreme Court decision in Gutierrez v Saenz (2025). In the 5th Circuit opinion of Gutierrez v Saenz (which involved denying access to DNA testing), the appellate court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge TX's DNA testing law, because the case only addressed how state law violated the plaintiff's rights. It did not address how prosecutors could still use discretion to deny defendants access to DNA testing. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, ruling that due process required access to DNA testing, regardless of whether it was state law or prosecutorial discretion that denied a defendant access to DNA testing. In other words, Cook County is arguing that, because plaintiffs are not challenging all the laws that prohibit carry on public transit, declaring the state prohibition unconstitutional will not grant them relief (i.e., the ability to carry). Therefore the plaintiffs have not stated a claim that can be granted relief. Therefore the case should be reversed. The 7th Circuit is asking whether, if the state law would be found unconstitutional, other governmental units (e.g., Cook County or the public transit agencies themselves) would lack the authority to deny carry on public transit.

On July 5, Cooper filed his response.

The word we got was Bloomberg got to the AG. being the last state to pass carry, if they went to SCOTUS and lost, Cali and New York et al would have been lost a decade sooner. But the Court was a bit different in 2013

Most of this comes back to threat of appeal. There was no Bruen precedent in 2013. That was an open and unanswered question. The bigger obstacle to a right to carry are the fees. The state was fortunate to get the results it did with the FCCL. We should be working to reduce fees to a transparent rate for CCL's.

There are 3 types of anti-gunners addressed in this thread: those who would forbid you to carry by any means, those who would forbid you to open-carry, and those who would forbid you to conceal-carry. They would all compromise your rights.

While Mr. Nichols twitter post was aimed at me, I saw it as a broader attack on many here who labored to get a carry law passed. An attack not grounded in any semblance of reality, from a person completely removed from the actual events and who never participated in any of the actions that took place here in Illinois. I can name the people who were in the room when decisions were made, Valinda, Mike, Boch Tim bower, the Chiefs assn, Sheriffs. Valinda brought Mrs Shepard to me and I worked to push that case through NRA to get it filed. The reason people refer to Moore is NRA’s often foot dragging even when time of of the essence. Once we won that case, it then fell to the people here in Illinois to see it through. And the lot of us spent a lot of time, testifying, reading, drafting and in meetings about the bill. Those that were around remember Madigan’s plan to hold votes every Wednesday for a couple hours debating item by item as amendments to a false bill. All to put republicans on record for wanting guns in parks, gun in daycare centers and on and on to have a way of blasting the inept republicans and put them in a trick bag – make the gun owners/NRA mad or face the voting public so they could sell -- evil republicans wanting guns in daycare etc. Open carry was never a viable option within the legislature. And Madigan had an iron fist gripping the process of how any bill would move and what was in it. As Chairman of the democratic party, as well as speaker of the House, he had complete control over the process. And Mr. Nichol’s claim about Chicago not controlling the legislature only shows his naivete at the political landscape and politics in the Illinois’ legislature. Let us not forget that we didn’t have any preemption in 2013. Any non-passage of a law would have ended up with every home rule town and Cook county passing their own carry laws. Don’t think so, look at what Chicago tried after loosing McDonald My memory fails to recall any of the meetings we had where Mr. Nichols attended. Don’t recall him being in any leadership position of any group here in Illinois or relevant national organization. Don’t recall seeing him testify or being on the steps of the capitol after 1 am waiting on the final language of the bill. I know he wasn’t at the hotel bar at 2:45AM when we got the language and had less than 4 hours to comment. Never saw him at the rail of the capitol working the issue in any way. And for the record, the legislature NOT passing a bill and letting everything just go completely permit less carry is 2013 was never going to happen – that is what drove the speaker to pass a bill. But to his thinking, it is best to look down upon the people who did the work, because they didn’t do it his way on his pet issue. And then to call those same people names, mock their intentions or commitment and hurl insults at them. No his one note B-flat organ turns out a tiresome troupe where after pointing out the lack of any intelligent understanding of the obstacles faced in 2013, or any reality of the situation, he plays the part of victim. I’m proud of having worked with Valinda, Mike, John, Tim and a host of others to get done what we did. None of their motives should be impugned nor maligned for what was accomplished. Especially from an out of state keyboard commando who played no role in anything that was accomplished from the filing of the lawsuits till the passage of the bill.

Thank you helping these two gentlemen out. It is hard to navigate through the Illinois bureaucracy alone.

Thanks.

Just curious what box did you check on the 4473 pertaining to ever being convicted if a felony? I just got my records expunged, appeal granted, and FOID card is on its way.

Or a War Reenactment Card, Benbow always corrects me on that.

If they follow their own law, it shouldn't. But, a government can take anyone done for nothing if they want to. I.E. President Trump or the sailor, Patrick Adamiak. The judge even said the sailor was innocent, yet he's rotting in prison. I hope the 2A groups can push for his pardon.

Although a long time Illinois resident and member here at IC, we moved. We’re now in Michigan and can get a can…

We have no control over what happens on X. It would have been best if it had stayed there, but it didn't.

The quote, "secret advantage and unmanly assassination" is from a list of pre-civil war decisions and others showing how the understanding of the Second Amendment has evolved. The Supreme Court did not say it agreed with the statement. "Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.” District of Columbia v. Heller | 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

It is certainly the decision of the forum owner and moderators about who and what is posted here. The reason I asked is that he called out Todd on X, Todd remarked about it here, and after bringing the discussion here, Mr. Nichols has (in my opinion) not done much other than stir the pot and call people who do not agree with his point of view regarding open and concealed carry "cowards" and "immoral" while claiming that he doesn't want or need our help or support. I personally do not find statements such as to add very much to the discussion supporting the right to keep and bear arms. Your mileage may vary. I also find statements such as the following insulting: I may not have been a member at the point when Mr. Nichols stopped frequenting this board, but I do believe that anyone who has been active over the past 5 years would likely agree that a lack of attention is not among my faults.

Thanks ~SIgh~

This feels a lot like when they offered the free registration for pistol braces and nobody did that. I do love that lawsuit(s) are already in motion to take out the NFA though.

I'm seeing some sources say that the NFA tax provisions go into effect on October 2, not January 1. Maybe it's time to wait for some kind of consensus or authorities. Either way, it's not immediate.

You ordinarily pay the NFA tax when you submit the ATF forms. Is there any FFL who would let an item sit in "NFA jail" without the forms even being submitted? You should realize that we still cannot purchase SBSs and silencers in Illinois. Also SBRs still require a C&R license, too. The only change is that the tax is $0. Prohibited things are still prohibited.

Thanks. I wonder if that timing is based on when I submit information? Or when they issue the approval? Can I make the purchase now? Or have to wait until first of year? I suspect I will have to wait…

Some things are effective immediately, like changes to Medicaid, etc., but the NFA tax reduces to $0 on January 1, 2026.

Good for you, I hope it doesn't bite you in the arse. If they want to point to you, the laws are so vague, they can fk ya 20ways to Sunday.

Mr. Nichols has been a member for quite a few years. He has as much right to post here as most anyone else. He was essentially called out in this thread, and responded in way that showed a degree of restraint that others might not.

Mark Baird is tolerant of concealed carriers. Worse, his New York attorney decided to argue that both concealed and Open Carry are protected by the Second Amendment even though the three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals can do nothing about California's prohibition on concealed carry are California's concealed carry licensing laws because Mark Baird's lawsuit is limited to the Open Carry of handguns. Judge VanDyke was right when he told Mark Baird's attorney that her oral argument didn't help her case. Concealed carry is an act of moral turpitude in Illinois and California. Every state in the history of the United States, with the exception of Vermont, came to the same conclusion. Legalizing an act of moral turpitude does not change the immorality of the act. Concealed carry is to the Second Amendment what same-sex marriage is to the 14th Amendment, a right that never existed and only contrived to placate the immoral.