NakPPI

Some attorneys travel, some won't. Most have a few counties that they will cover. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

There are a ton of reasons why you can't carry today. All that matters is that the statute challenged in Aguilar no longer exists. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

I suppose that the NRA could now file a suit arguing that the delay language in FCCA is unconstitutional in State court. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

No you can't carry today. See the foot note about how the opinion doesn't address the FCCA? Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

Motion isn't on the calendar for tomorrow... Something happen off call? Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Don't be jealous, but I should be able to go to this hearing. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Omg. Did a law student write this? This is friggin amateur pleading. They can't even get the fonts consistent from where they cut and pasted! Oh and the 7th circuit drafting rules say not to use sans serif fonts. Double fail. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

If it's trying to get class certification, then it's likely a money damages sort of law suit. It may ultimately end in the invalidation of FOID, but without seeing the complaint it's all tin foil hat speculation. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Two shell bills in the self defense section? Ouch. Watch them try to add a duty to retreat or something. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

We could still lose this case if the court finds that because Aguilar was a minor, he lacks standing to contest the 2A issues. It will be interesting to read. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

As far as I know, they haven't had oral arguments on it yet.

Same districts for me. Again, we really need to push Arie Friedman for senate, as Julie Morrison is a self proclaimed anti. Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.

I must say that I love Gura's legal writing style.

If this is fact,why have the other lawsuits concerning UUW? I think its the extent which is in question, and of course, every "new" decision needs subsequent suits to serve as tests. Also, IL GA has proven that they are incapable of operating proactively [concerning right to carry]. They must fail in the courts before they initiate the typical "reactive" legislation. Lawsuits can only address the particular facts of the case. So while the court found that 2A extends beyond the home the only issue of the case was whether they could ban commercial firing ranges.

From a concealed carry perspective and in relation to the two pending Federal cases against Madigan and Quinn, the most important thing to take away from the case is the following rule: "Labels aside, we can distill this First Amendment doctrine and extrapolate a few general principles to the Second Amendment context. First, a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self‐defense will require an extremely strong public‐interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its end. Second, laws restricting activity lying closer to the margins of the Second Amendment right, laws that merely regulate rather than restrict, and modest burdens on the right may be more easily justified. How much more easily depends on the relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core of the right." Clearly an outright ban on carrying of weapons for self defense implicates the "core" of the second amendment and the prohibition on the carrying of weapons in the entire state is not a "close fit" between the government's means and ends. If I were a legislator I would be scrambling to pass HB 148 before a federal judge strikes down Illinios' ban on concealed carry outright. Ezell v. Chicago.pdf