xmikex Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM Feeling like this kid a lot today. http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/31710715.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysonu74 Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:05 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:05 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. Wouldnt they then be setting themselves up for many very expensive lawsuits for wrongful arrest and maybe suits for infringing on a constitional right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burningspear Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:07 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:07 PM Mr. Todd, you have the baton. Take it across the finish line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGreen1911 Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:13 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. Wouldnt they then be setting themselves up for many very expensive lawsuits for wrongful arrest and maybe suits for infringing on a constitional right. Yes. That would be a textbook 1983 case, and the fact that the 7th Circuit explicitly held the law unconstitutional would likely be enough to destroy qualify immunity and open the door to personal liability. Can't see why anyone would risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGreen1911 Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM Also, I'd like to take a moment to say to everyone who thought I was a numbnuts for thinking there would be a stay of some sort in the case of a favorable ruling: See, e.g., Moore v. Madigan, No. 12-1269 (7th Cir. December 11, 2012). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM (edited) 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. Good Lord what kind of a sham is he attempting to put on.. "Fundamental legal principles"?? What the heck is he talking about? I thought the Bill of Rights kinda covered that??"Make laws to protect themselves" - Uhhhhhhh - that's what this is about - what a boneheaded statement. What specific "conditions" related to public safety are only relevant to Illinois??? Edited December 11, 2012 at 11:21 PM by GWBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Beret Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:24 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. Wouldnt they then be setting themselves up for many very expensive lawsuits for wrongful arrest and maybe suits for infringing on a constitional right. Yes. That would be a textbook 1983 case, and the fact that the 7th Circuit explicitly held the law unconstitutional would likely be enough to destroy qualify immunity and open the door to personal liability. Can't see why anyone would risk it. In a sane world all of that would be true, but this is Illinois and even though a guy with a FOID card has an unload firearm in a fanny pack is legal, it is entirely possible that he could be arrested and even go to trial. It has happen, though not so much lately. Of course, there is always the good old standby of Disorderly Conduct or Disturbing the Peace.Regardless, the idea of constitutional carry has its appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Peterson Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:28 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:28 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. Btw, Mr. Goodman is not an organizer. He is a PR Flack from LeClair: http://www.leclairryan.com/lee-goodman/ He only agrees with his "client" as long as he is paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM The anti's have known how the ruling would go since the end of September. They had a chance to cut a deal, but didn't.No surprises here.Congratulations to everyone who supports the constitution. Be ready to renew the fight. It's a long way from being over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:35 PM Should we be calling our reps and demanding they pass HB148 yet?I liked HB5745 better (I think that is the bill number). No state involvement in the training, and NRA classes would count, along with a range qualification, if my memory serves me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geneseo1911 Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM Vandermyde said the NRA controlled enough votes in Springfield to block passage of any "may issue" law in Illinois. He said Illinois would have to adopt a "shall issue" law - one mandating that a firearms carry permit be granted to virtually everyone. The only exceptions would include felons and the mentally ill. According to Vandermyde, the NRA would prefer no new law at all to one that left gun rights to the discretion of state and local officials. If no new law were adopted by the court's mid-May deadline, he said, Illinois would instantly transform from one of America's most restrictive gun-rights states to one of the most open. Vandermyde claimed the court's ruling created a sort of "gun-rights cliff" similar to the so-called "fiscal cliff" in Washington, D.C. With the state's current gun law invalidated, failure to enact a new one would effectively free Illinois gun owners to carry loaded firearms in virtually any fashion, he said. They would need no training and would be subject to virtually no oversight, he said, needing only a state Firearm Owners Identification card. From the Fox Chicago report...I like the sound of this Sic 'em Todd!(BTW...gun rights cliff....concealed carry cliff...where have i heard that before....)Read more: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20316449/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-illinois-concealed-carry-law#ixzz2En0yTnAl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:49 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:49 PM What what what!? I slept through this!?? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:50 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:50 PM Let's hope the legislature drafts a good Right to Carry bill, not just a concealed carry bill. I would hate to be busted just because someone caught a glimpse of my weapon.I am remembering that there were provisions for unintentional glimpses of guns in the 148 and 5745. This would protect us all from what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM I just thank God that I was wrong in my beliefs on Illinois having Concealed carry. This just instills in me the knowledge that Chicago does not have everything or everyone in their hip pocket. I am glad that the judges in this ruling refered to the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings for their issuance of this ruling. This is based on the Constitution and law not some stupid Chicago whim. Maybe now Chicago will thing twice before attacking the Constitution again.This is why the Constitution was written, to prevent ruling by whim or power or intimidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGreen1911 Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:04 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:04 AM I just thank God that I was wrong in my beliefs on Illinois having Concealed carry. This just instills in me the knowledge that Chicago does not have everything or everyone in their hip pocket. I am glad that the judges in this ruling refered to the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings for their issuance of this ruling. This is based on the Constitution and law not some stupid Chicago whim. Maybe now Chicago will thing twice before attacking the Constitution again.This is why the Constitution was written, to prevent ruling by whim or power or intimidation. And on that subject, perhaps many people who assumed that the judges on the 7th Circuit were "in the pocket" of IL/Chicago politicians rather than faithful to their oath of office, owe them an apology... I remember the impugning of the federal judiciary getting pretty out of hand a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM This quote sums up what they think of your rights and it's chilling “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." I've yet to hear a word about this out here in SD from the media, Id imagine the criminals are all up in arms :frantics: :frantics: Congrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM I just thank God that I was wrong in my beliefs on Illinois having Concealed carry. This just instills in me the knowledge that Chicago does not have everything or everyone in their hip pocket. I am glad that the judges in this ruling refered to the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings for their issuance of this ruling. This is based on the Constitution and law not some stupid Chicago whim. Maybe now Chicago will thing twice before attacking the Constitution again.This is why the Constitution was written, to prevent ruling by whim or power or intimidation. And on that subject, perhaps many people who assumed that the judges on the 7th Circuit were "in the pocket" of IL/Chicago politicians rather than faithful to their oath of office, owe them an apology... I remember the impugning of the federal judiciary getting pretty out of hand a while back.I think some IL folks may just be a bit gun shy regarding corruption; we have come to expect that it is everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM Exceptional news today! I was among those sceptical of the 7th circuit court. I owe them an apology. IGOLD2013 will be a party to remember! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:41 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:41 AM Exceptional news today! I was among those sceptical of the 7th circuit court. I owe them an apology. IGOLD2013 will be a party to remember! I was thinking this very thing. Wouldn't it be awesome if the legislature actually got off their collective butts and passed a decent RTC bill on March 6th, 2013 during IGOLD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysonu74 Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:42 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:42 AM Im hoping to hear from Todd as to his take on things and where we are headed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorvinion Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM My my my When I saw the news flash across drudge I was like maybe even a little Congratulations to everyone who has been so busy at this the last few years. Yes, I've been a slacker these last three years. I wonder if anyone even remembers me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:10 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:10 AM Im hoping to hear from Todd as to his take on things and where we are headedMy guess is that he is media blitzing and even meeting with sponsors to plan the new bill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:17 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:17 AM Vandermyde said the NRA controlled enough votes in Springfield to block passage of any "may issue" law in Illinois. He said Illinois would have to adopt a "shall issue" law - one mandating that a firearms carry permit be granted to virtually everyone. The only exceptions would include felons and the mentally ill. According to Vandermyde, the NRA would prefer no new law at all to one that left gun rights to the discretion of state and local officials. If no new law were adopted by the court's mid-May deadline, he said, Illinois would instantly transform from one of America's most restrictive gun-rights states to one of the most open. Vandermyde claimed the court's ruling created a sort of "gun-rights cliff" similar to the so-called "fiscal cliff" in Washington, D.C. With the state's current gun law invalidated, failure to enact a new one would effectively free Illinois gun owners to carry loaded firearms in virtually any fashion, he said. They would need no training and would be subject to virtually no oversight, he said, needing only a state Firearm Owners Identification card. From the Fox Chicago report...I like the sound of this Sic 'em Todd! (BTW...gun rights cliff....concealed carry cliff...where have i heard that before....) Read more: http://www.myfoxchic...w#ixzz2En0yTnAl I think Flannery needs to change his depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:19 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:19 AM I extend my sincerest apology to the judges in their following of the Constitution. I was of the impression that in Illinois, whatever Chicago wanted even though unconstitutional, they got. Well, I was wrong and I am glad to admit it. This has renewed my faith in the justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smblion Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:27 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:27 AM 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. They get it. Guys like him are tyrants. They don't want the commoners to have guns because an armed populace is stronger than his personal power cult. America was founded on principals of individual liberty and freedom from Tyrants. It is a slap in our collective face the way our democratic system has been perverted to put such people in power. I thought I had more to say, but what matters most is they lost. As they have always lost for thousands of years of human history. And one could argue victory was obtained without violence. When resisting tyranny that is surely a victory for us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:32 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:32 AM Maybe I am too giddy with joy to think straight, but why are we even talking about 148 at this point?That was a "best we can hope for at this time" bill, but as of today the game has changed immensely.We are no longer required to go hat in hand to every influential group trading away bits of our rights for their support. Forget ridiculous training requirements, forget no campus carry, forget hgh license fees, forget no reciprocity, forget duty to inform. An impasse works to our advantage, why should we negotiate now that WE finally have the upper hand?Look at the Wisconsin carry law...it accepted a hunter's safety class as sufficient training, it accepted another state's carry license as sufficient training. Haven't heard any reports of blood flowing in the streets due to stupid accidents caused by not having 40 hrs of training. Let's dictate some damn tough terms to Madigan & Co and see how they enjoy being on that end of the shaft for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:40 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:40 AM So a new law on conceal carry must be in effect by June 13th. When will we realistically be able to carry? 6 months after that maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:40 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:40 AM (edited) I think I had more heart attacks today than Ditka had in a lifetime of wolfing down his pork chops! LOL! Without trying to sound blasphemous... as far as our gun rights in Illinois are concerned... IN TODD WE TRUST Now, lets hope the NRA backs Todd with money, advertising, radio and TV spots, etc so that we can finally drive the nail into the gun control coffin! Edited December 12, 2012 at 01:41 AM by Mr. Fife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:46 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:46 AM So a new law on conceal carry must be in effect by June 13th. When will we realistically be able to carry? 6 months after that maybe? Well there will have to be a study! Which we know takes a year or more, then time to implement, etc. The funny thing is even if they pass the law by that date, it takes time to setup a licensing apparatus, people to staff it, forms to design, training, websites, etc. It generally takes months. So basically as of 6 months from today the AUUW and UUW laws are void, but if you cant get a license to carry because Illinois takes a year to do anything and then it takes 60 or 90 days to get your license (best case as FOIDs take that long now). Basically there is some crap going down 6 months from now. No way Illinois can pass and implement an actual CCW process and system in this time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlJ Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:56 AM Share Posted December 12, 2012 at 01:56 AM My name is Karl. Ive been watching from the sidelines for months and figured its a good time to say hello. Congratulations Illinois and everyone whos efforts brought us to this conclusion. This is one of the best days Ive had in a while!! 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