Machine Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:28 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:28 PM (edited) What a glorious day! Just made another 'Thank you' donation to SAF. I'm sure this isn't over, but the ruling will certainly provide some great fuel! Edited December 11, 2012 at 09:29 PM by Machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:32 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:32 PM (edited) I actually for the first time agree with Phleger. Here is is facebook post on the issue today. Father Michael Pfleger U.S. appeals court strikes down State's concealed-carry ban. Amazing a group of Judges who sit in a Building that doesn't allow guns allows guns to go everywhere else! Of course they don't adress the fact that 120,000 people with mental illness are not yet in the system, nor deal with the loo holes of private sale nor lost or stolen, or titling guns like cars....I say if guns can go anywhere according to them then that should include all government and court buildings also! I made a comment: I'd like to say thank you, Phfledger, for your support of the carry law that's about to be passed including government buildings. Your endorsement will go a long way toward making it happen. Thank you for your support of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Edited December 11, 2012 at 09:37 PM by dnielson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:38 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:38 PM what exactly is a Fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmikex Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:40 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:40 PM REALLY happy to see this ruling. The 2nd amendment (since being incorporated thanks to Otic McDonald!!) is being treated like the 1st Amendment. It's about damn time. We REALLY need to be on our toes the next 180 days. The Antis are going to try to worm their way out of this with as many restrictions as they can. We're going to have to get every pro-gun person we know updated, motivated and calling / meeting with their state congress members to push through THE best bill with the fewest restrictions we can. It MAY require asking pro-gun house / senate members to vote AGAINST a CCW bill put forth by the anti-gunners. Amazing job everyone - really glad to see the hard work pay off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM what exactly is a Fish? "Fish" comprise a paraphyletic group of vertebrates, which contains a common ancestor and some, but not all, of it's descendants. For "fish" to be meaningful in terms of monophyly and ancestor-descendant relationships, the tetrapods would have to be included in "fish" as well. And humans, after all, are merely derived fish. Hope that cleared it up for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM For once I don't know what to say, I am almost speechless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM PLEASE STRIKE DUTY TO INFORM TODD !!!!!!! Ok, no one tell Todd anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM We REALLY need to be on our toes the next 180 days. The Antis are going to try to worm their way out of this with as many restrictions as they can. This can't be said enough or screamed loud enough. There will be an opposition bill I am sure of it. Todd will keep us informed but we have to keep neighbors informed and get others involved in calling and emailing their reps. WE CANNOT ALLOW A NY or CALI TYPE CARRY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM what exactly is a Fish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_EmanuelEmanuel is known for his "take-no-prisoners style" that has earned him the nickname "Rahmbo."[25] Emanuel sent a dead fish in a box to a pollster who was late delivering polling results.[20] On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[9] I've added the bold font Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:48 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:48 PM Is all that true or just Wiki-nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGreen1911 Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:58 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:58 PM We REALLY need to be on our toes the next 180 days. The Antis are going to try to worm their way out of this with as many restrictions as they can. This can't be said enough or screamed loud enough. There will be an opposition bill I am sure of it. Todd will keep us informed but we have to keep neighbors informed and get others involved in calling and emailing their reps. WE CANNOT ALLOW A NY or CALI TYPE CARRY! It would take a f-up of astonishing proportions for a may-issue bill to be passed after this ruling. The pro-carry reps are well aware that the Chicago crowd is now on the defensive, and aren't going to settle for a terrible law. They know that now is the time to go for the jugular. What is the other side going to do? They pretty much have to give in, unless they are willing to accept the inevitability of constitutional carry. No way in heck a may-issue bill gets 71 votes, and even if they try to pass a bill without preemption, the pro-carry lobby will most likely be able to prevent it from getting to 60 votes. It's shall-issue or constitutional carry, pick your poison Chicago Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:59 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 09:59 PM I was a little troubled by the order at the end of the majority opinion: Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinoislegislature to craft a new gun law that willimpose reasonable limitations, consistent with the publicsafety and the Second Amendment as interpreted inthis opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.[emphasis added] That got me thinking about what kind of "reasonable limitations" the court had in mind. Judge Posner did list a few of these limitations scattered throughout this opinion:Sensitive places off-limits (schools, government buildings, etc) as per HellerTraining requirementsPrivate property rightsRestricting the rights of convicted felons/mental ill/domestic violence midemeanantsa permitting systemDid I miss anything else? Are there any other "reasonable limitations" that were endorsed in this opinion that I missed? -- Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM Is all that true or just Wiki-nonsense? Its on the internet - IT HAS TO BE TRUE There are foot notes cited, you can follow those. I wouldnt put it past him, but Rham's never sent me a fish in the mail. I did receive a box of steaks once, for some charity work I'd done 10 years ago (not for Rham) - Omaha steaks. Tastee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM Is all that true or just Wiki-nonsense? See those little numbers at the ends of sentences? Those are citations. Click on one and you'll be taken to the source of the quote. It's how anything on Wikipedia retains credibility, just like anything else that's put into print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM (edited) Well this is a great time... Now the Chicago Machine will need to get started on a plan to "thumb the municipal nose" (Ezzel) at the Supreme court and other courts once again. It is up to us to see that that does not happen. We will have to be ready on the phones and to round up 1000s of calls when a bill is crafted... I also noticed the that phrase, "shall not be infringed," was absent from the any of the language of this opinion. At some point we need to emphasize, "shall not be infringed." Regards, Drd... Edited December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM by dmefford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM Single shot capability. Why would you need to shoot more than once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdoom Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM Be on your guard guys! The most dangerous enemy, is the enemy being routed, and in retreat. If you have not done so, call your reps. and tell them you will NOT support anything but shall-issue in Illinois! We have the leverage now, and it's time we pass nothing BUT the BEST, let the anti's swallow the bitter pill, they've enjoyed 51 years of this, and it's time they reap what they've sown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM Did anyone see what Mayor Emanuel's office released? “We are disappointed with the Court’s decision," said a spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel. "The City is reviewing today’s opinion and will coordinate our efforts with the State to best protect the residents of Chicago and still meet constitutional RESTRICTIONS."Emphasis added. They still don't get it. Not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM I think this is the best Birthday present I've ever gotten. My thanks to all those involved in this fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM I know it probably won't be, but is there any reason that this CAN'T be tackled during the Veto Session? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM I know it probably won't be, but is there any reason that this CAN'T be tackled during the Veto Session? The veto session is over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:22 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:22 PM There's something starting on the 3rd of January. That's not part of the veto session? Also, to me, if a law that affects the entire state is found to be unconstitional shouldn't it be fixed ASAP? Perhaps a special session could be called? I know it WON'T, but why not a 30-45 stay? Why is an unconstitutional law allowed to live another 6 months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:28 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:28 PM what exactly is a Fish? "Fish" comprise a paraphyletic group of vertebrates, which contains a common ancestor and some, but not all, of it's descendants. For "fish" to be meaningful in terms of monophyly and ancestor-descendant relationships, the tetrapods would have to be included in "fish" as well. And humans, after all, are merely derived fish. Hope that cleared it up for you. lol rofl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM There's something starting on the 3rd of January. That's not part of the veto session? Not part of the veto session, but still time to act during the 97th General Assembly if they want to. Also, to me, if a law that affects the entire state is found to be unconstitional shouldn't it be fixed ASAP? You would think, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:32 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:32 PM Did anyone see what Mayor Emanuel's office released? “We are disappointed with the Court’s decision," said a spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel. "The City is reviewing today’s opinion and will coordinate our efforts with the State to best protect the residents of Chicago and still meet constitutional RESTRICTIONS."Emphasis added. They still don't get it. Not surprised. He doesn't need concealed carry, he has bodyguards. Aldermen already have concealed carry and don't want anyone else to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:38 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:38 PM Oh well, we all want Constitutional Carry TODAY, but I'll take today's win. I just don't get the long stay. I also don't think a legislative vacuum is a bad thing for a law struck down as unconstitutional. It's not like it wasn't challenged previously. If it is wrong then it should be done away with ASAP IMHO. Oh well, I'm still going to enjoy tonight. Maybe I'll open up the Romney victory champagne that I never got to drink yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM This will certainly tick them off and they will go full force with an assault weapon bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:47 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:47 PM From the Tribune article, quoting Lee Goodman of "Stop Concealed Carry Coalition": “The decision, contrary to fundamental legal principles, took away the people's right, through their state legislatures, to make laws to protect themselves that are relevant to the conditions present in each state.” That's hilarious. I am reassured to know that our opposition is comprised of such legal and intellectual heavyweights and Mr. Goodman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM If its unconstitutional what can they charge you with? They can STILL charge you with UUW/AggUUW! That's what the "180 day" is in the ruling. Nothing changes until the Illinois Legislature passes a bill that's "effective immediately" and Gov. Quinn signs it. Either that or 180 days pass with nothing out of the Capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM I have heard it said that if no bill is passed arrests will continue to be made even though the law is unconstitutional. Frankly, since concealed means concealed I would be willing to take my chances of getting caught if I knew that I had an affirmative defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now