ChicagoRonin70

Isn't it a 3-year stretch felony for a prosecutor or law enforcement agent to deliberately tamper with or suppress evidence evidence that would be exculpatory to a defendant?

Young v Hawaii is an open carry case. If Young can't carry his revolver concealed, he wants to carry it openly. Hawaii's strategy seems to be to delay the case until after Young dies, thus making it moot. Young is like 70 years old now. I thought it was because Hawaii had never issued a concealed carry permit, and so Young sought to carry openly, and since Hawaii wasn't allowing either to be permitted, that Young was challenging the state on grounds that they did not allow the bearing of arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, under any licensing scheme. So, wouldn't it kind of be about both, since if you can't do either, the the right is being infringed completely in any event?

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books. In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued. Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits. So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored. The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received. Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations. That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right? We need something like that here, with the standard of proof being that if . . . A: Has the FOID system caused even ONE person to be denied their ability to legally keep and bear arms within a reasonable time frame (we'll use the 30 days that Illinois law currently has as the deadline to issue or deny a FOID card)? If the answer is "yes," and especially if the answer is "yes" for multiple or, even worse, MANY people have been denied their right to keep and bear arms, as reserved and protected by the Second Amendment and the Illinois Constitution, Section 22, which reads . . . SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. . . . then the following MUST be the ruling: B: Because of actual, permanent, and unrecoverable harm (it's impossible to go back in time to restore the lost ability to exercise the violated right), the FOID card represents an inherent potential future violation of such rights, and is thus required to be illegal. The standard should be, and objectively IS, as simple as that.

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal. Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future. Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

Meaningless, you have no idea what happened prior to the start of the video.Im not here to prove innocence or guilt, thats for the courts to decide. Just pointing out no matter how hard you want to adopt these liberal idiots as your 2nd amendment saviors theres more to it than homeowners castle doctrine vs BLM. That being said, please post more footage, Im very curious to know how the gate got destroyed. Was it the white people that always show up at peaceful BLM protests and cause it to turn into a violent mob? (as the McCloskeys claim) http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2020/post-14647-0-09883100-1595389177.jpg

Will I have to change my signature photo? One can only hope!

I know exactly what you mean. I am a disabled combat vet, who has been shooting for over 40 years, had scads of high-skill military shooting training, teach self-protection to very at-risk groups of people (who are all favored groups by progressive agendas and causes, just so happens), and have jumped through every hoop known to man to prove that I am "one of the good ones"—and yet, this state has literally taken legal steps to try to prevent me from exercising the Constitutionally protected rights that I fought and sacrificed permanently for. Thankfully, they lost in my case, but I see this kind of thing so often, and many of the people it happens to don't have the resources or the energy to go toe-to-toe with the rights-infringing government of this clown-car of a state, and they end up losing those freedoms that we fought for. That's what's truly deplorable.

Reginald J. Shatbox! That's a wonderful resource!

We've discussed creating a situation where the state is forced to take this to court, to force the issue, as a stated matter of civil disobedience, so the unconstitutionality can be directly and openly challenged by an ideal plaintiff. That's the only way that this sort of thing won't get shuffled along and not create precedent. You can see it happened with the decision not to charge the CCL holder on the Blue Line incident above, because the state knows that if it went to court, they would lose just like the lost just about every other firearms restriction case that they've had brought against them.

Follow-up: Both the alleged attacker and the gun owner were taken into police custody, but the owner was released without criminal charges. The alleged attacker remained in custody pending charges Wednesday afternoon, said police spokesman Anthony Spicuzza. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-concealed-carry-owner-blue-line-20191205-zsmbhryvwndsdbxmjm5hae4hy4-story.html Hmm, I missed this one. I wonder why no charges were pressed by the CPD, even though . . . ". . . state law prohibits CCL holders from bringing concealed firearms on public trains and buses, or any public facility “under the control” of transit agencies." Could it be that they were instructed not to, because this would be a perfect case to illustrate that firearms carry and use by law-abiding citizens are not only necessary because of the crimes that abound on the C TA, but also that the only reason this prohibition exists is to restrict CCL owners from traveling on public transportation and make them less inclined to carry? My attorney has instructed me to INSIST upon charges being pressed on me, and to file a 14th Amendment civil rights lawsuit for failing to be given equal treatment under the law if they don't, so that I can press a 2nd Amendment violation case and get this prohibition destroyed in the courts.

Yes, this is something I have been looking for, as a reference!

That's interesting and it means that my county is probably a sanctuary. Is there a master list somewhere which shows exactly which counties are 2A sanctuaries? Kevin, keeper of the IC maphttp://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=68707&page=20&do=findComment&comment=1228326 or different map here https://gunrightswatch.com/news/2019/06/11/illinois/bureau-county-il-passes-2a-resolution-crawford-county-won-t-prosecute/ Hmmm, they both show Piatt already passed??? Looks like they passed one in 2012 so this new report must be a 2020 version. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=68707&view=findpost&p=1207857 All of those maps seem to only go up to about August of last year. Is there a regularly updated map, as well as a list of the counties and other municipalities, anywhere? If not, maybe a sticky should be put up with that in it, in the original posting, for quick and complete reference.

I thought about that, but I don't think our fight is to provide firearms at no expense anymore than we would fight to provide cars, phones, etc at no expense. Besides, money is fungible. Actually, since the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right, and cars, phones, et cetera, are things that are material privileges, I am ALL for poor and disadvantaged people receiving subsidies to be able to obtain the means to defend themselves. I'd rather my taxes go to that than a lot of other things—pretty much to that than just about ANYTHING.

I don't know if I agree with that, because sometimes the thing that the MOST needy people require MOST is the ability to defend themselves against predatory criminals, and survival due to self-defense is a need that supersedes even eating, in the immediate scope.

What comments?