Jump to content

ChicagoRonin70

Members
  • Posts

    4,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChicagoRonin70

  1. Received my license in the mail today, 95 days after submission. I had my service dog sitting watch at the top of the stairs all day; he's trained to bark whenever deliveries come to the building, people walk by, or anything occurs around the property. He's enough of an idiot savant to know when I set him at the top of the stairs, it's important so he sticks to the spot and keeps watch like a soldier. The second the mail person rolled up in front of the house, it was like the Hounds of H ell with him thundering down the stairs to announce the arrival. He got half the steak I was eating, medium-rare 45-day aged ribeye. He's a good dog.
  2. Figuratively, the ISP has been taken out to the woods, made to duckwalk without pants, while the plaintiff walked behind them wearing wingtip shoes and imitating an NFL kicker booting a 65-yard field goal. That would be the objective, scientific description of how to characterize this win.
  3. Seven thousand, three hundred, twenty-six. No, it's true, you actually can carry that many loaded handguns in Illinois with your CCL, if you had the capability. Where's my portable hole? Bag of holding?
  4. What is this lawsuit about? There is no context here, and the links won't play for me.
  5. Yes, this is a fantastic resource! I am regularly having to do searches and checking the archives for these cases!
  6. Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states. Seriously. The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms. It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary. "Behind current gun control efforts often lurks the remnant of an old American prejudice, that the lower classes and minorities are not to be trusted with firearms. The bias originated in the post-antebellum South for political reasons and may have changed its form, but it still exists. Today the thought remains: if you let the poor, and especially the black poor, have guns, they will commit crimes with them. Even noted anti-gun activists have admitted this. In his book The Saturday Night Special, anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control guns but to control Blacks." [55] Barry Bruce-Briggs, in The Public Interest, stated that "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday Night Special' is emphasized because it is cheap and it is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence. The reference is to 'Niggertown Saturday Night.' There used to be a guy in Oak Brook who had a website dedicated to this. The one thing that I remember well is one of the Nuremberg judges, Thomas J. Dodd helped write the GCA of 1968. He had a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm This a long read but is very pertinent to what is going on right now in Illinois. The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?
  7. IMO a better avenue of attack will be this disenfranchises rural gun owners by removing their ability to easily access an FFL; similar to how closing down voting locations in rural areas or predominantly X or Y areas has been ruled unconstituional before. Isn't there a court case or several right now regarding the onerous licensing and doctor hospital admitting practices that are making it well-nigh impossible for many women to get abortions in several states? I would think that kind of legislated dissuasion would be an exact parallel to this situation, and thus with access to a right being prevented by legislating it out of local availability would be the same for both cases. In my view, BOTH rights should be left to the individual wishing to exercise them how they feel best, and where they want to go to do so, and the governments both State and Federal, as well as any local units of, should be prevented from passing ANY laws that interfere with that.
  8. Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel." That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk That being the case, perhaps it would be a very ripe time for a class-action lawsuit using that fact as determined by this decision to challenge the FOID law once and for all. Does IllinoisCarry have the ear of some hard-charging Second Amendment/civil rights attorneys that would be open to entertaining pursuing this? Surely we can GoFundMe, even just among the thousands on this board and their families and friends who support firearm rights, a considerable retainer fee to get the ball rolling. I have an extra $500 in my shooting funds jar that is just sitting around to either purchase a new toy or waiting for my favorite ammo manufacturer to have a big discount code sale. I'd happily repurpose that for a donation if I knew it would actually be applied to that cause.
  9. So, if the FOID requirement is unconstitutional to Brown, what about ". . . nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause? Fourteenth Amendment? Fourteenth Amendment? If it applies to Brown v. Board of Education and also applies to everyone, than how can this Brown v. not ALSO apply to everyone?
  10. By the way, does anyone know with certainty which attorneys on this list would specialize in Second Amendment/First Amendment/Constitutional rights litigation cases? Specifically, which of them might have successfully litigated cases for challenges to anti-firearm/civil rights laws or ordinances?
  11. No, they are not answering the phone. Message me with what your dad is trying to do. Isn't that a dereliction of their required duty, that they are being paid for by my tax money? Perhaps we should file a class action lawsuit against them for misuse of public funds.
  12. Surely there must be a way to have an attorney file some sort of action to hold these malefactors accountable, particularly since it appears that by giving that false revocation notice, it would be an attempt, or more specifically conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law. To wit: 18 U.S. Code § 242.Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103( , Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006( , title XXXII, §§ 320103( , 320201( , title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604( (14)( , 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.) If I recall correctly, conspiracy to commit a crime is treated as if the crime were actually committed. 18 U.S. Code § 241.Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), ( (1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604( (14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.) Quite frankly, what occurred here is a violation of civil rights, or a conspiracy to do so, and should be pursued ruthlessly as such. There has to be a crusading pro-Second Amendment attorney who would be willing to go after the Cook County Sheriff's Department for daring to do this sort of criminal act so brazenly.
  13. I will bump this regularly, to keep it active. This is very relevant to my interests.
  14. If you go back through the early discussions that were had about the licensee rates and the projected declines, I mentioned that I had been in contact with a number of researchers who were tracking and making predictions about this sort of thing. They proved to be very incorrect about the "leveling" number of total licensees (they had predicted somewhere around 250K by 5 to 7 years or so, and then holding steady due to licensee mortality and leaving the state, et cetera). However, the trend line for the percentages that they had predicted were, if I recall correctly, pretty close to what is being seen from those numbers, especially the precipitous drop-off from 2016 to 2017, because of reaching a place where many of the licensees who had the financial means (as well as combined with the non-criminal record/disqualifying status) were pretty much tapped out. They predicted that a certain percentage of each population demographic would be inclined to acquire a CCL, and based their trend predictions on that. They obviously underestimated what the interest would be, so they were wrong on their base percentages of those interested in acquiring a CCL, but it appears that they were at least reasonably close on how long the "well" of CCL applicants with the means to acquire one would continue to be productive. This being said, if Illinois CCL holders continue on this trend, then you'll have about 20 percent growth this year, about 11–13 next year, 8–9.5 percent in 2020, and probably hitting the equilibrium of a stable number of licensees by 2021 to 2023 and being somewhere in the neighborhood of 455,000 licensees. There might be some incremental growth above the equilibrium point, so maybe by 15 years after CCL was made legal, we get to about 500K licensees. However, one thing that needs to be taken into account is that it is very likely that people who are most likely to be CCL holders are also those most likely to be part of the hemorrhagic exodus of people from this rights-abusing state. If that is indeed true, we could end up seeing not only a population drop in the state increase as it did this year, but the total number of licensees and percentage of the population who have them decrease as well. Still, even having around twice what the original academic predictions were for a CCL holder pool is extremely heartening. The thing that makes me kind of unhappy even with that is that it's still not even 5 percent of the population.
  15. That's entirely wrong. I have taught several people who have non-binary gender identification to shoot, and I know at least three of them who have gotten their CCLs. They're the ones who actually need the ability to defend themselves most, from violent bigots, and I'm happy to help them acquire the means to do so definitively. Yeah... I apologize. I really do know better and posed a cheap joke. The several I know well are pretty anti gun. A useful knowledge of guns is not dependent on ones choice of any of society’s typical identifiers. Or any of the new ones. I will keep working on the ones I know. In the past two years, my non-gender/orientation-conforming acquaintances, and acquaintances of acquaintances, have been disproportionately asking me to get them familiarized with firearms for self-protection's sake. Given that segment of the population comprises anywhere from about 0.5–1.5 percent of people, I'd say 20 percent of those asking for my help with firearms are non-cisgender-heterosexual, and probably 75 percent are non-heterosexual who seek me out to take them to the range. These folks are scared witless about being victimized, and many of them have had it happen to them on multiple occasions. Not to mention that almost all of them are non-male identifying, and have a litany of horror stories to tell about being attacked over the years. The unfortunate thing that pops up far too often is that because of how society marginalizes and persecutes them, so many of them have to seek mental health treatment for self-preservation's sake, which then disqualifies them from being able to own/carry/use a firearm for protection. Illinois really bites it hard when it comes to screwing over the people who need to be able to protect themselves the most. It's despicable.
  16. I imagine that any additional genders are likely not keeping or bearing arms. That's entirely wrong. I have taught several people who have non-binary gender identification to shoot, and I know at least three of them who have gotten their CCLs. They're the ones who actually need the ability to defend themselves most, from violent bigots, and I'm happy to help them acquire the means to do so definitively.
  17. I wonder if it is actually Cook County officers going off reservation, or if it is someone running a scam trying to get documents to counterfeit and use to buy firearms illegally?
  18. I believe Molly would be the person to direct you to a likely attorney. There is a list of 2A attorneys on this board that I just saw her add a new name to.
×
×
  • Create New...