RockerXX
-
Posts
5,107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by RockerXX
-
-
The NRA as an organization has a lot invested in promoting...
I believe that is the important part, regardless of the dedicated NRA branches the NRA is still primarily a lobby and public relations organization promoting firearms, they tend to not stir the court battle pot they just give it nudges and then only when they deem it a promising case...
-
only in the context of both being prohibited at the same time.
And I believe that is where the court push really needs to be right now, either the State allows people to carry concealed or open as default... If you are not a Federally prohibited person they have to permit one or the other by default, none of the games IL and other states are playing where they decide who is worth and who isn't to exercise their 2nd based on a licensing scheme that lacks due process...
-
How bout a martial arts school? It is not posted but is it considered a school and therefore prohibited?
IMO this is outside the 'spirit' of the FCCA definition of school, but that isn't to say that am anti-gun prosecutor could not make a very convincing argument that it is indeed a school as defined by IL Supreme Court in People v. Levisen and put the defendant through a long court battle...
If schools are to be banned as they are, the legislators really need to include a definition of school that applies under this act, but I would not hold my breath on our legislators actually doing anything until the courts weigh in and force their hand...
-
I have a question about this section:
2) Any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a pre-school or child care facility, including any room or portion of a building under the control of a pre-school or child care facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home or license under this Act, if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is stored in a locked container when a child under child care at the home is present in the home.
What constitutes a "child care facility"? Someone I know works for an after school program like Sylvan's (no, it is not Sylvan's, but one of its competitors). It is not a child care center per se, but it is a private after school tutoring center. Would she be permitted to carry her firearm there?
Thanks.
More so we have to be careful of what is defined as a school...
In IL the definition of school could be very broadly interpreted thanks to People v. Levisen...
"a school, in the ordinary meaning of the word, is a place where instruction is imparted to the young"
-
At the end of the day IMO it really doesn't matter all that much what case the SCOTUS takes, if they are inclined to support the position they will support it, and if they are inclined to 'broaden' it they will word their decision as such, and if they plan to not support the position they will follow through and not support, regardless of what case they are ruling upon...
I do agree that the questions asked in some cases are better for us, but at the end of the day we are never going to get the single sweeping case that ends the debate, it's always going to have to be chiseled away at...
-
I wonder if they are tired of hearing from Gura on 2nd amendment cases
Well the solution there is simple, answer the questions (or more simply just confirm and broaden the scope of their own ruling) being asked of them by Gura, once the SCOTUS lays down the law once and for all Gura won't have a need to keep taking cases to them...
I still believe that even though the SC Judges know full well what the 2nd should cover based on it's defined purpose, they are reluctant to come out and say it, as it destroys long standing tradition and precedents and to be blunt "upsets" and "angers" the other branches of the government...
-
Chrislinger! Thanks so much! But thank Molly! She and Todd has been working their butts off. Hopefully what we can do is get enough lawsuits going where the board will only be able to deny if certain tangible criteria are met and it must be like 5 to 7 arrests.
How about no denials for arrest alone? Since when did an 'arrest' (or even multiple arrest) and not a single conviction in a court of law become an acceptable reason for the government to revoke and deny Constitutionality protected rights? To endorse or even accept that policy IMO is simply wrong on multiple levels, and we should be standing 100% behind abolishing and destroying any law/policy like that...
I can see the abuse happening already, a local law enforcement agency doesn't want Billy Bob to carry a gun, no need to object to his application they only need to execute 5 arrest (your know for serious crimes like loitering, jaywalking, or the ever popular disorderly conduct) and they just fixed their problem no gun for Billy... Continue to arrest him once a year from there on and Billy will never get his license... And this is somehow acceptable to anyone here?
-
ISP says the concern is that although IL has recognized the restored right, will federal law enforcement agencies recognize it? If someone with a restored FOID, is issued a carry license and is stopped or arrested outside of IL, will they be viewed as violating federal law?
Makes no difference what state they are arrested in, if the Feds don't recognize the restored right they don't recognize it and if arrested by a Federal agency even within IL the failure to recognize would apply... This is also above and beyond the scope of CC, as the IL CC card is only 'valid' in IL just like the FOID... Seems like just another excuse, but since the law does not provide them 'time' to figure out their excuses, they need to get off their collective butts and stop making excuses...
-
Here are all the files hosted off site for those having troubles downloading attached PDFs, as I'm sure some will have issues as I had issues with them timing out and failing to download fully, only getting the first 32k of the file...
Thomann-vs-ISP-Filed http://www.scribd.com/doc/220182621/Thomann-vs-ISP-Filed2014-04-23-Pltf-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-2-c-1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/220183086/2014-04-23-Pltf-s-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-2-c-12014-04-23-Pltf-s-Brief-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunctive-Relief-and-Admin-Review-2-c http://www.scribd.com/doc/220182888/2014-04-23-Pltf-s-Brief-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunctive-Relief-and-Admin-Review-2-c -
Police don't need "fantasy excuses" for probably cause. The traffic law is written as such that someone inadvertently violates the law ever minute while driving. I never had a problem finding a legitimate PC. I don't see why an officer would pull over a dui suspect on hearsay. The driving violations are a large part of the case in showing that the driver was a threat to themselves and the community. Of course, waiting to see if a reckless driver will sideswipe another car is probably not a good idea.
Well having been on the receiving end of 'fantasy excuses' for both traffic stops and even warrants being served against me I fully beg to differ...
-
I read the syllabus. Odd that Thomasdelivered the opinion with Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Breyer either joining or concurring and Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting. Breyer also went with the majority in Schuette (sp?). I thought Navarette would be a good case but now an anonymous tip gives a LEO enough PC to initiate a traffic stop without actually observong someone's erratic driving. It's kinda troubling in that anyone can just call the cops on any car and have them pulled over on suspicion of DUI. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
I agree, but really nothing changes, police have been making up fantasy excuses for decades to pull people over... Having real and justified probable cause for any police action pretty went out the window long ago from stop and frisk to full out gun blazing no knock warrants...
-
The Court granted cert in Heien v. North Carolina, that oughtta be a good one since it involves LEO mistake of law and the Fourth Amendment implications. Courts are split over the constitutionality of LEOs pulling people over for traffic violations that aren't violations at all, then searching the vehicle and finding something the driver shouldn't have. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
It amazes me there is a split, it's long been established that ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse/defense, but clearly some courts believe it is but only if you are a LEO...
-
Oh wow and I thought Gura's briefs were in-your-face. CATO basically told SCOTUS to put its money where its mouth is and hear the case. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
Yep, I really wish the SCOTUS would stop playing the politically correct "We don't want to send the controversial wave across the US" game and put an end to several of the hot topics of today that are being fought over and over again in multiple states...
-
This works both left click (opens to a new window) and right click save.
The other links will sometimes stay at 0 d/l or start the d/l and stop and different points along the way.
That pretty much narrows it down to this forums script or server causing the issue...
-
For those that can't open it try this, I opened it in Nitro 8, optimized it and re-saved so hopefully that fixed any anomalies...
Nope, still no joy...
Just to narrow it down, here it is uploaded off site, see if this works... If so it's obviously an issue with the forum...
Also try right clicking and save as...
-
For those that can't open it try this, I opened it in Nitro 8, optimized it and re-saved so hopefully that fixed any anomalies...
-
It's not abuse unless, until someone is unfairly denied a license to carry. We know Sheriff Dartt is filing objections over nonsense. We can only wait and see if it turns into abuse. Unless and until it is, we need to give the process a chance to work. If rights are denied unfairly, then the fight is on.
How can you say that it's not abuse in the first sentence, follow with the second sentence that we know Dart is abusing it, and follow that by your third sentence that says we have to wait to see if it's abused?
The fact that Dart is already abusing it at will pretty much proves my point that by design it's an abuse and is infringing upon those flagged peoples rights, many of them members here apparently...
I can't agree with your philosophy that it's not abuse until the board rules and denies a right... IMO the fact that LEO and an appointed board are able to interfere at all with a protected right without the persons day in court is abuse enough, irregardless of the final outcome...
IMO it also violates the 5th and 14th amendments guarantee of due process and infringes upon the 2nd as well...
Sorry but I will never support the review board and process...
-
I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment but if these people are being flagged legitimately I support the law enforcement agencies 100%.
Short of a court order or court conviction that makes you a prohibited person (I don't even fully agree with the list of qualifiers that make you prohibited) there is no reason any LEO should be able to object let alone the board be able to deny...
I support the entire Constitution and that Constitution does not grant LEO or a politically appointed group the power to arbitrarily interfere or deny anyone's protected rights based on 'opinions or feelings' without that persons day in court and being found by that court through due process to lose the rights...
So unlike you I will not and can not support law enforcement in this matter as it will be abused, in fact by design it's pretty much abuse already, IMO...
-
not necessarily true. An applicant could have been arrested for verbally threatening to harm someone in a road rage incident or maybe a domestic arrest neither of which resulted in a conviction for example that caused the LE officer to flag them. The board decides "yes this person could be a threat in carrying a concealed firearm"
And I hope every one denied for a non-conviction sues the State and all those involved in the denial from top to bottom and gets their big payday for a denial of a civil right...
-
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm assuming that means it was given to all the SCOTUS judges so they can look it over and then come to a decision on whether to hear it or not?
Sort of, it's there for their consideration but it doesn't necessarily mean they will actually look at it or consider it... Only time will tell...
-
Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.
I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please.
Check out 18 USC 921(a)(33)(
(ii)."A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."
Incidentally, there is a sister provision for felony convictions located at 921(a)(20).
The Illinois Supreme Court's decision this morning was that a person can have their rights restored as contemplated by 921(a)(33)(
(ii) by going through the procedure outlined in 430 ILCS 65/10© -- which is the section of the FOID act that allows a person to challenge a denial of a FOID card in court.Interesting, I guess it's time for my friend to lawyer up and get the mess straightened out as the ISP denied his FOID... In conversations over the phone with the ISP they told him that even though his rights were restored in IL the Feds had him marked for a lifetime ban and thus they would not issue his card...
-
Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.
I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please.
I second that request....
-
Looks good so far, have to see the fallout... I have friend that is dealing with this, he was convicted of misdemeanor assault (not domestic), and IL says he can 'technically' get his FOID back under IL law but since the Feds decided it was a domestic charge/conviction he is bared for life and the FOID will be denied under Federal law...
-
Be interesting to see how it pans out, there is certainly a bunch of nonsense in the law but that doesn't necessarily mean the courts will give us a favorable ruling on the 'legality' of bans in general, more likely they will just kick this one to curb because it's horribly worded and not address the bans in general...
Prohibited Carry Zones - 23 Categories
in Illinois Right to Keep and Carry
Posted
I think it's going to boil down to this in the courts...
A train/bus is a commonly understood mode of transportation, it's used to get you from point A to point B, it's not a place you 'visit' or 'hang out' with any other purpose beyond getting from point A to B and thus you are truly 'transporting' and the courts will likely favor this commonly understood definition...
On the other hand making the argument that you are transporting when you decide to circumvent a posted GFZ like a School or Park that in it self is not a commonly understood mode of transportation is going to be a much harder argument to win and thus the 'gray' status...