what should we do next?

[richp]

Is their assumption that having a CCL entails training?

 

[Flynn]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:28 AM, Packy said:

Someone mentioned getting constitutional carry. I am against constitutional carry. People need training. Without training people have no clue about what is safe and unsafe. Fingers will be on the trigger. In the old days training was passed down father to family. Everyone needed to know how to properly use a gun to defend the family. We don’t have that anymore. I suspect the constitutional states will see a rise in accidents.

 

So you believe exercising a right should only be allowed to be exercised after you do training?  So if you want to go to church you need to take religion training first?  And if you want to vote you need to take voter training first?  And if you want free speech you need to take free speech training firt?  How about the right to remain silent, can only those that took self incriminations training first exercise it?  I could go on, rights come with risk some will abuse them an d/or use them for ill intents, that is no reason to make the right a privilege to some while denying it to others.

 

Training is a good thing, but a right that requires training to exercise is no longer a right...

 

But on the topic of training I would love to see EVERY school be required to include gun safety and education classed in thier curriculums every year from kindergarten to high school.

[Craigcr2]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:13 AM, richp said:

Is their assumption that having a CCL entails training?

 

Assumption, who knows... requirements as written? Nope.
 

“Prospective members must have a valid resident concealed carry permit or a non-resident concealed carry permit and the permit MUST remain valid during the membership coverage period.”

[richp]

Okay, then I don't get it.

 

Why would there be some significant underwriting difference between having and not having a CCL, if it wasn't training, which presumably would somewhat reduce the risk of a person carrying doing something stupid, unwise, or patently illegal?

[Caveman2021]

If it hasn't been mentioned, would love that the "open carry" bans be taken away, id prefer when i go on a walk or a hike (if "ccl free zones" go away from alot of common places) to have it out and ready if need be.

heck even if i need to change my shirt in a parking lot, could be considered "open carry" depending on the asshole cop.

Not that i want to open carry all the time, theirs a time and place and honestly, its stupid to keep it banned if i can go across all borders and open carry.

[SiliconSorcerer]

What other constitutional right costs money? 

 

[mab22]

On 5/4/2023 at 3:40 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

What other constitutional right costs money? 

 

Sarcasm on <

Technically you need a permit/permission slip  if you want to protest or use your 1A rights on some street somewhere. 

🤓
>
 

[gtr2009]

On 5/4/2023 at 7:50 AM, Molly B. said:

 

 

It isn't a carve out,  these service members and their families live in Illinois and should have the same rights as other residents. It's an atrocity that the men and women who protect this country and can carry full auto weapons when fulfilling their duties, can't carry to protect themselves and their families. 

 

AN ATROCITY. 

Plenty of civilians also live in IL for many months out of the year, or have second homes here, or spend significant time here caring for elderly family, or live in Indiana but work daily in Illinois, but like the military members are not legal residents.  It doesn't matter why one is in IL while not a legal resident.  A specific group of people living in IL while not legal residents having the right to carry while some other group living in IL while not a legal resident not having the right to carry is the literal definition of a carve out.  I don't think the distinction between 12 months a year (military) and 5 months a year or 7am to 6pm 365 days a year(civilian) changes that fact. 

[gtr2009]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:28 AM, Packy said:

Someone mentioned getting constitutional carry. I am against constitutional carry. People need training. Without training people have no clue about what is safe and unsafe. Fingers will be on the trigger. In the old days training was passed down father to family. Everyone needed to know how to properly use a gun to defend the family. We don’t have that anymore. I suspect the constitutional states will see a rise in accidents.

You are aware that non law enforcement CCL holders, on average, shoot less innocent bystanders and hit their target more often than law enforcement does with all their "training", right?  While more training is always better for everyone and accidents happen, there is no pandemic of untrained CCL holders wildly shooting themselves or others due to lack of training.

[Molly B.]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:13 PM, gtr2009 said:

Plenty of civilians also live in IL for many months out of the year, or have second homes here, or spend significant time here caring for elderly family, or live in Indiana but work daily in Illinois, but like the military members are not legal residents.  It doesn't matter why one is in IL while not a legal resident.  A specific group of people living in IL while not legal residents having the right to carry while some other group living in IL while not a legal resident not having the right to carry is the literal definition of a carve out.  I don't think the distinction between 12 months a year (military) and 5 months a year or 7am to 6pm 365 days a year(civilian) changes that fact. 

 

Anyone who is a resident,  works in,  travels in/thru, etc - our appeal in the Culp lawsuit was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm not willing to give up on that. 

[Sol-Invictus]

I want restitution from the Democrat Party (they are a private, members only organization and subject to suit) for the Civil rights violations I have been subject under the 2nd Ammendment.

 

FOID is clearly unconstitutional per Bruen.

 

Suppressors

 

Constitutional carry, open and concealed

 

Eliminate sensitive places, especially school which have NEVER been considered sensitive places. 

 

Waiting periods

 

 

[yurimodin]

Constitutional carry would be great but if we can't get that the ludicrous 4 months period they take for no reason to issue my permission slip is insane. If someone wants to go from having no foid to ccw it can easily take 6 months start to finish......

 

 

[ragsbo]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:28 AM, Packy said:

Someone mentioned getting constitutional carry. I am against constitutional carry. People need training. Without training people have no clue about what is safe and unsafe. Fingers will be on the trigger. In the old days training was passed down father to family. Everyone needed to know how to properly use a gun to defend the family. We don’t have that anymore. I suspect the constitutional states will see a rise in accidents.

1. I agree that anyone who has a gun should have training on how/when to use it.

2. I DISAGREE that some government entity should TELL you what that training MUST be before you can use your CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right.

3. DO NOT get lulled into the liberal socialist commie thinking that folks MUST BE FORCED to do what "they" say to exercise any right. That gives them the power to control

4. And if you look at the states that do have constitutional carry, there has not been a rise in accidents.

[richp]

Over the long run, one could visualize a situation where having training in some modest way protects you against litigation or prosecution, while not being trained makes you more vulnerable.

 

I'm not saying this is the way it should be. I'm just saying given the way our society is trending, it's not beyond possibility.

[mikew]

On 5/4/2023 at 3:40 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

What other constitutional right costs money? 

 

Free speech/freedom of the press using the airwaves, via an FCC license.

 

 

[Jeffrey]

On 5/5/2023 at 10:43 AM, mikew said:

Free speech/freedom of the press using the airwaves, via an FCC license.

 

 

Who is also then regulated to what they can or cannot say, without fines at a minimum.

[BobPistol]

On 5/3/2023 at 8:57 AM, BobPistol said:

Can we do something radical and challenge the constitutionality of part of the Illinois Constitution, the beginning part of section 22?

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Challenge in Federal Court this red part of the Illinois Constitution.      This cannot stand under Bruen.   Eliminate the first part and it is far easier to fight these ridiculous commie laws. 

 

Any reason this is not a good idea?      If we successfully challenge this and get this part struck down, the rest of the stuff you guys are talking about will also be struck down as well.

[MRE]

On 5/5/2023 at 10:59 AM, Jeffrey said:

Who is also then regulated to what they can or cannot say, without fines at a minimum.

Courts have generally upheld a government entity’s ability to place time, place, and manner restrictions on public speech. If there is a fee, however, it must have some relation to the cost of things such as enforcement/enactment/safety of the regulation for which the fee is instituted. A fee impacting the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be for general revenue, and cannot be so high as to effectively prohibit someone from exercising their right.

 

Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech do not, however restrict you from holding certain beliefs or expressing them in a private manner. This is where the  attempted comparison by gun control advocates between the 1st and 2nd amendment falls apart when they try to say “we put restrictions on speech in public sometimes, so we can say what guns you can have”….the response is, and is noted since Bruen, that regulating how one posses certain firearms in a certain public spaces is one thing, and there may be some historical analogue to some of that, but saying they cannot even possess them in their own home is a restriction no other right is allowed to be burdened with.

Edited May 5, 2023 at 04:23 PM by MRE

[chislinger]

On 5/5/2023 at 11:20 AM, MRE said:

Courts have generally upheld a government entity’s ability to place time, place, and manner restrictions on public speech. 

Only in cases where exercising 1A rights interferes with the rights of others. For example, if you're holding a rally in a park it interferes with the rights of others to use the park at the same time, so each parties interests must be balanced. Carrying a gun in no way prevents other people from exercising their rights, so a fee or permit to carry is on very shaky ground IMHO.

[illinois_buckeye]

One thing to think about on the 2nd amendment and ccl etc.  I agree training is a good thing, but the 2nd amendment doesn’t say you have to have training.  It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  
 

If you look at the language of it, the right to keep or carry is pretty plainly stated.  I’d like to see all 50 states be constitutional carry personally.  Maybe people committing crimes in large cities would think twice if a little old lady pulled out a revolver when they got ready to mug her.

[davel501]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:55 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

One thing to think about on the 2nd amendment and ccl etc.  I agree training is a good thing, but the 2nd amendment doesn’t say you have to have training.  It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  
 

If you look at the language of it, the right to keep or carry is pretty plainly stated.  I’d like to see all 50 states be constitutional carry personally.  Maybe people committing crimes in large cities would think twice if a little old lady pulled out a revolver when they got ready to mug her.

 

The Founding Fathers believed that Americans would take their responsibility as citizens seriously. Firearm training is as important as voting and jury duty.

[illinois_buckeye]

Training is important and I think in those days many people felt a need to use weapons.  On the frontier for example I’m assuming they were a part of life.  That said I still don’t feel like they should be able to charge for a constitutional right.

[davel501]

On 5/10/2023 at 10:38 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Training is important and I think in those days many people felt a need to use weapons.  On the frontier for example I’m assuming they were a part of life.  That said I still don’t feel like they should be able to charge for a constitutional right.

 

It is as unthinkable as a poll tax. I'm not sure how it exists now.

[Flynn]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:33 PM, davel501 said:

 

The Founding Fathers believed that Americans would take their responsibility as citizens seriously. Firearm training is as important as voting and jury duty.

 

Your analogy misses the target, it should say something like firearm trianing is as important to exercising 2nd as is being educated on the political issues and the candidates is to voting, and a jurer having at least a basic legal understanding is to jury duty.  But, in all three cases none should be mandated and mandatory to exercise a right.

 

That said our founding fathers were well aware that there would be 'weapon stupid' people owning arms, this is not some new phenomenon.  Weapon stupid people existed even back then, the fact our Founding Father never enacted a law mandating training falls inline with Bruen that they accepted there will be bad actors and bad actions that comes with the right but chose not burden the right with and requirements that would potentially deny or burden the right to the 'good' masses.

[davel501]

On 5/11/2023 at 12:48 AM, Flynn said:

 

Your analogy misses the target, it should say something like firearm trianing is as important to exercising 2nd as is being educated on the political issues and the candidates is to voting, and a jurer having at least a basic legal understanding is to jury duty.  But, in all three cases none should be mandated and mandatory to exercise a right.

 

That said our founding fathers were well aware that there would be 'weapon stupid' people owning arms, this is not some new phenomenon.  Weapon stupid people existed even back then, the fact our Founding Father never enacted a law mandating training falls inline with Bruen that they accepted there will be bad actors and bad actions that comes with the right but chose not burden the right with and requirements that would potentially deny or burden the right to the 'good' masses.

 

Give Federalist Paper No. 29 a read. There is a lot of personal responsibility built into all this being an American stuff. 

[Flynn]

On 5/11/2023 at 2:01 AM, davel501 said:

 

Give Federalist Paper No. 29 a read. There is a lot of personal responsibility built into all this being an American stuff. 

 

If one was part of the militia, a militia that was to be called upon to serve the country for military purposes and defense, that paper certainly gives insight of what may/should be expected of that militia to be able to actually defend against an opposing military, but...  We are talking about the individual right ot keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution, not what should be expected of those conscripted to militia service, thus I don't see how it has any bearing on individuals exercising their 2nd protected rights for their own individual self defense.

 

Byond that Scalia says it best  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738

[Plinkermostly]

Training is good, but not a requirement under the law (2nd).

 

 

If it bothers 'them' so much, then just add it High School ed. --

after all -- it's for the children.

[davel501]

On 5/11/2023 at 3:18 AM, Flynn said:

 

If one was part of the militia, a militia that was to be called upon to serve the country for military purposes and defense, that paper certainly gives insight of what may/should be expected of that militia to be able to actually defend against an opposing military, but...  We are talking about the individual right ot keep and bear arms enumerated in the Constitution, not what should be expected of those conscripted to militia service, thus I don't see how it has any bearing on individuals exercising their 2nd protected rights for their own individual self defense.

 

Byond that Scalia says it best  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738

 

The milita is the whole of the people. 

[Flynn]

On 5/11/2023 at 9:17 AM, davel501 said:

 

The milita is the whole of the people. 

 

The militia is not and has never been the whole of the people, one can argue it should have been or be but the fact remains it never was.

 

Again, the 2nd is "an individual right unconnected with militia service" "unconnected" being the keword here.

 

Thus any talk of training or requirements or what is good for a militia is also "unconnected" from individuals exercising their individial right that is "unconnected" to the militia.

 

Again, the right enumerated in the 2nd is "unconnected" from the militia, and I'm not going to entertain those that continue to try and connect the two, they are as "unconnected" as "unconnected" as it is for one to be required to work a day job where they wear a shinny star on their uniform to exercise the enumerated individual right.

 

 

 

[davel501]

On 5/11/2023 at 2:40 PM, Flynn said:

 

The militia is not and has never been the whole of the people, one can argue it should have been or be but the fact remains it never was.

 

Again, the 2nd is "an individual right unconnected with militia service" "unconnected" being the keword here.

 

Thus any talk of training or requirements or what is good for a militia is also "unconnected" from individuals exercising their individial right that is "unconnected" to the militia.

 

Again, the right enumerated in the 2nd is "unconnected" from the militia, and I'm not going to entertain those that continue to try and connect the two, they are as "unconnected" as "unconnected" as it is for one to be required to work a day job where they wear a shinny star on their uniform to exercise the enumerated individual right.

 

 

 

 

Here is the full quote:

 

Quote

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

 

— Founding Father, George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment.