ChicagoRonin70

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!

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.

What comments?

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.

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.

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?

It seems based on our very anecdotal evidence that calling is a must. It seems that if you call, or have your rep call, you get moved to the top of the pile. That shouldn't be how the world works, but I guess it is. Squeaky wheel gets the oil. So, is that consistent for CCW renewals as well?

What is this lawsuit about? There is no context here, and the links won't play for me.

That means one more for an even 2/3 of the state's counties. There really has to be a way this 2/3 supermajority can be capitalized on to do something to move the needle for the entire state towards the anti-firearm-confiscation side. I am talking legislatively, not just feel-good platitudes.

Yes, this is a fantastic resource! I am regularly having to do searches and checking the archives for these cases!

Huge loss to the firearm-owning community of this state!

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?

That's even better! More than 3/5 of the state, not to mention an even dozen SAs who won't prosecute for specious violations of SB107. Ideally, the overwhelming majority of the state does the same, to offset the the Chicago area and northern IL anti-firearm contingent. The dozen state's attorney who have publicly come out for nullification are just the tip of the iceberg. Twice that many have indicated agreement privately. If they would come out publicly, that would be even better, because it would add momentum and weight to the whole legal aspect of it. If eventually a large majority of SAs tell the State that they aren't going to enforce unconstitutional laws, and stick to their guns if push comes to shove, then it would be a game-changer.

That's even better! More than 3/5 of the state, not to mention an even dozen SAs who won't prosecute for specious violations of SB107. Ideally, the overwhelming majority of the state does the same, to offset the the Chicago area and northern IL anti-firearm contingent.

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.

How many counties is this at this point? 64? Plus, how many townships in ones that haven't declared as sanctuary counties have passed some sort of 2nd Amendment sanctuary resolution? Is there an official count?

Again, I think I need to eventually contact this David Sigale fellow.

So, we are over the 60 percent mark for counties in Illinois, plus how many towns, villages, and other municipalities in IL have adopted it? Anyone know?

Will this work? attachment=23313:Map_of_Illinois_Gun_Sanctuary_ Counties.2019.04.09.png] So, from that map, it looks like 3 counties failed/refused to pass a resolution, 38 counties haven't done anything yet, and 61 counties have passed Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions. That's just 1 county shy of a supermajority of counties (59.8 percent with the numbers as they stand). But, alas, Cook County, with 40.77 percent of the state's population, continues to dictate how the state is run and its political dominance.

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.

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?

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?