Jump to content


Photo

2A carry case to be heard at US Supreme Court


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#31 bosshogg

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 21

Posted 26 April 2021 - 10:01 PM

Btw, even though I made the comment regarding permits above, not to say that training is not important.  In my opinion, if you are going to carry, it's definitely a good idea to get some training or at the very least spend a few hours at the range so you know how to shoot accurately and how your firearm works.  I wish that Illinois weren't so annoying in regards to getting a ccw as far as cost, wait etc.  My parents in Ohio got their ccw a while back and it only took I think a week and picking it up from the county sheriff.  

 

As far as the case though, if they would rule favorably, then I guess we need them to look at magazine bans as to if they feel those are legal.  I know how everyone here feels, but you know it's something that will be coming up considering congress these days.  

Completely agree that training is extremely important, however I think that the shutdown and backlog of permits over the past year have showed how problematic a permit system could be. a lot of first time applicants waiting for the better part of a year just goes to show that.



#32 mab22

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,755 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 26 April 2021 - 10:22 PM

It is about time!!

Care full, we don’t want to get let down. I don’t trust the court. 
I think we have 4, not 5. 


Void the FOID!

#33 illinois_buckeye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 20

Posted 26 April 2021 - 11:44 PM


Well you see right now Arizona is doing a forensic audit of the election.


 
I wouldn't get my hopes up.   This is just Kabuki theater done by our local RINObpulicans.


Well you see right now Arizona is doing a forensic audit of the election.

 
I wouldn't get my hopes up.   This is just Kabuki theater done by our local RINObpulicans.


You may very well be right. However I was just reading a few minutes ago, some of the mainstream outlets are already trying to discredit the company doing the audit because they don’t have experience with elections and that the owner was a trump supporter if I remember what I read correctly. But the fact that democrats have already filed lawsuits there and the fact they’ve sent lawyers, I think 73 was the number I heard that they sent down there?

Part of me thinks if people aren’t concerned, then let them audit to their heart’s content since they wouldn’t find enough data to be concerned with. Just seems like people who had things to hide would be the only ones making as much noise as they are.

#34 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 10,035 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 27 April 2021 - 08:36 AM

 

You may very well be right. However I was just reading a few minutes ago, some of the mainstream outlets are already trying to discredit the company doing the audit because they don’t have experience with elections and that the owner was a trump supporter if I remember what I read correctly. But the fact that democrats have already filed lawsuits there and the fact they’ve sent lawyers, I think 73 was the number I heard that they sent down there?

Part of me thinks if people aren’t concerned, then let them audit to their heart’s content since they wouldn’t find enough data to be concerned with. Just seems like people who had things to hide would be the only ones making as much noise as they are.

 

 

Who cares if they send lawyers.  Won't make a difference.

 

Let's say the best case scenario happens.   

 

Let's say the Audit uncovers some really evil nasty stuff.   Stuff that could influence an election.   Will that mean Arizona will decertify their 2020 electoral vote and then the Totalitarian in Chief has to step down?   Nope.

 

Again, just Kabuki theater EVEN if things go 100% right. 


Edited by BobPistol, 27 April 2021 - 08:41 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#35 illinois_buckeye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 20

Posted 27 April 2021 - 09:42 AM

Even if Biden didn't step down, lets face it, are we really expecting that?  But if the states fix their election systems, and republicans get the house and maybe even the senate back, but even just the house, they could trip Biden/Harris up until they got out of office.



#36 chilton

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 20

Posted 27 April 2021 - 09:46 AM

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38



#37 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,865 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 27 April 2021 - 09:54 AM

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#38 mab22

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,755 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 27 April 2021 - 08:24 PM

 

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land

 

So what are people getting so excited over this. We in Illinoisistan will have to battle the radical left that wants to set fees to the moon to prevent people from carrying let alone owning?
 


Void the FOID!

#39 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,136 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 April 2021 - 09:35 PM

 

 

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land

 

So what are people getting so excited over this. We in Illinoisistan will have to battle the radical left that wants to set fees to the moon to prevent people from carrying let alone owning?

 

It's the baby steps, if the court rules shall-issue nationwide, then you start to go after the fees and application process that continues to restrict, deny or delay the right next.  For example Illinois objection part of the carry law would be ripe for a challenge.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#40 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,865 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:07 AM

 

 

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

It won't. At best this will eliminate may-issue jurisdictions and shall-issue will be the law of the land

 

So what are people getting so excited over this. We in Illinoisistan will have to battle the radical left that wants to set fees to the moon to prevent people from carrying let alone owning?
 

 

Honestly? Its because people on left are saying it will allow everyone to carry a gun everywhere or whatever and people on the right are believing them (of, if you're feeling generous, egging them on)


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#41 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,207 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:16 AM

Been waiting on my CCL since early October. If concealed carry becomes the law of the land, I want my damn $153.38

 

I've said this many times, contact your representative it actually does work to squeak. 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

Remington Historical Foundation - 501©3 - donate to me ;) 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#42 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,207 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:18 AM

Honestly? Its because people on left are saying it will allow everyone to carry a gun everywhere or whatever and people on the right are believing them (of, if you're feeling generous, egging them on)

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean like in the 20 states now? 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

Remington Historical Foundation - 501©3 - donate to me ;) 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#43 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,292 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:21 AM

Great news.  If they can force NY to "shall issue", it would be a huge step in the right direction.  Expecting 50 state Constitutional Carry is unrealistic, but any movement toward 2nd amendment rights will be great.


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#44 Silhouette

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:50 AM

It's hard to predict what SCOTUS will do or decide -- especially before oral arguments.  The Justices narrowed the question significantly and struck the word "citizens" from Clement's question, which could have implications both for 2nd's  "the right of the people..." and the 14th's privileges and immunities clause invoked in Macdonald.  That Thomas doesn't need Roberts to have a majority is also encouraging (as noted above).  That is, it is unlikely that the conservatives were forced to narrow the question.  Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.  That is, in my opinion (and just mine), we don't necessarily need a sweeping ruling, but we need a clear ruling that will stand up for a long time and that provides a framework to permit GVR-ing many lower court rulings in the future as inconsistent with SCOTUS guidance.

 

I look forward to listening to orals in the fall.


Edited by Silhouette, 28 April 2021 - 07:51 AM.


#45 illinois_buckeye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 20

Posted 28 April 2021 - 08:05 AM

In other news....

 

https://www.wandtv.c...6822b610fe.html



#46 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,639 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 28 April 2021 - 08:40 AM

 

 

 

 

After the Tuesday ruling, FOID cards are still enforceable in Illinois. The ruling in this case only applies to Brown. 

 

Unfortunately, this is the problem.  The FOID is only unconstitutional for one person, which is completely absurd.



#47 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 14,787 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 28 April 2021 - 08:49 AM

Great news.  If they can force NY to "shall issue", it would be a huge step in the right direction.  Expecting 50 state Constitutional Carry is unrealistic, but any movement toward 2nd amendment rights will be great.

We didn’t lose our Second Amendment rights all at once but incrementally over the years. The mantra from the left has been death by 1000 cuts.

 As much as I wish it were otherwise, we will not regain our rights 100% by one SCOTUS decision but incrementally. This >>could be<< a good step in the correct direction. 


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#48 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 10,035 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 28 April 2021 - 11:24 AM

 

 

 

 

 

After the Tuesday ruling, FOID cards are still enforceable in Illinois. The ruling in this case only applies to Brown. 

 

Unfortunately, this is the problem.  The FOID is only unconstitutional for one person, which is completely absurd.

 

 

That's because this case is not stare decis (i.e. a precedent).  It is a regular court ruling.  If this was an appeals court ruling, yeah, that's stare decis.


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#49 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,136 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 28 April 2021 - 12:56 PM

Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.

 

That is the huge variable that could take a mundane and narrow case like this and give it Heller status.  Even with a narrow ruling if the court in the ruling establishes that a strict scrutiny test should be applied to 2nd infringement because it's an individual civil right, that completely reshapes our future and still ongoing fights as a vast majority of these infringing gun laws will not pass a strict scrutiny test.  Right now lacking an established level of testig for 2nd infringments has allowed the lower court Judges across the nation to apply whatever test they pull out of thin air that day, that has to end there has to be uniformity applied across all the states like there is for other rights.


Edited by Flynn, 28 April 2021 - 01:04 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#50 EdDinIL

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 14

Posted 28 April 2021 - 02:42 PM

 

Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.

 

That is the huge variable that could take a mundane and narrow case like this and give it Heller status.  Even with a narrow ruling if the court in the ruling establishes that a strict scrutiny test should be applied to 2nd infringement because it's an individual civil right, that completely reshapes our future and still ongoing fights as a vast majority of these infringing gun laws will not pass a strict scrutiny test.  Right now lacking an established level of testig for 2nd infringments has allowed the lower court Judges across the nation to apply whatever test they pull out of thin air that day, that has to end there has to be uniformity applied across all the states like there is for other rights.

 

Hypothetical:  Let's say SCOTUS invokes strict scrutiny.  What prevents a lower court from saying, "Naah, SCOTUS was wrong, strict scrutiny doesn't apply."?  


Life Member: NRA, ISRA, SAF

 


#51 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,865 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 28 April 2021 - 03:18 PM

Decided to put my reply here to keep the thread together
 
 

If they decide the right to bear arms does NOT extend beyond the home, I would guarantee that IL will ban concealed carry ASAP.


EDIT: I typed out a whole reply here that somehow vanished and it just left the quote. Guess I'll write it again...


Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain


Edited by defaultdotxbe, 28 April 2021 - 03:22 PM.

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#52 MRE

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 20

Posted 28 April 2021 - 03:50 PM

Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny.

 
That is the huge variable that could take a mundane and narrow case like this and give it Heller status.  Even with a narrow ruling if the court in the ruling establishes that a strict scrutiny test should be applied to 2nd infringement because it's an individual civil right, that completely reshapes our future and still ongoing fights as a vast majority of these infringing gun laws will not pass a strict scrutiny test.  Right now lacking an established level of testig for 2nd infringments has allowed the lower court Judges across the nation to apply whatever test they pull out of thin air that day, that has to end there has to be uniformity applied across all the states like there is for other rights.
Hypothetical:  Let's say SCOTUS invokes strict scrutiny.  What prevents a lower court from saying, "Naah, SCOTUS was wrong, strict scrutiny doesn't apply."?

The appeals process and almost 230 years of Article III precedent. A lower court could hypothetically say anything they want, but it would be swiftly shot down on appeal.

#53 sailor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 13

Posted 28 April 2021 - 04:27 PM

Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal.



#54 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 28 April 2021 - 04:49 PM

 

Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal.

 

You are correct. Your statement reads like a summary of the forthcoming decision. Let me make a guess. The decision will be a 6-4 declaration that the denial of the application violated the right to keep and bear arms.



#55 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:09 PM

Unfortunately, this is the problem.  The FOID is only unconstitutional for one person, which is completely absurd.

Because only an appellate court can set legal precedent. Only way this becomes applicable to all is if the state appeals and loses.

Edited by chislinger, 28 April 2021 - 07:09 PM.


#56 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 29 April 2021 - 10:11 AM

 

 

Any decision won't extend that far, as the grant of cert is limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since the petitioners had the applications denied due to lack of good cause, the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be limited to those good cause requirements. If the denial is unconstitutional then good cause requirements (IE may-issue) is struck down. If it is constitutional then may-issue laws can remain. Other than D.C. I wouldn't expect any existing shall-issue jurisdictions to revert to may-issue, but if it goes our way I would expect the existing may-issue states to impose requirements that will make IL's permit seem quick and easy to obtain

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal.

 

You are correct. Your statement reads like a summary of the forthcoming decision. Let me make a guess. The decision will be a 6-4 declaration that the denial of the application violated the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Should have said 6-3. 



#57 Ranger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,111 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 01 May 2021 - 03:25 PM

"Should have said 6-3". :-)

Good grief. Saw 6-4 & thought the court packing had already began while i was away from the internet! ;-)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users