Jump to content


Photo

Post-McDonald gun rights lawsuits thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
59 replies to this topic

#1 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 10:53 AM

There are sure to be many lawsuits filed filed across the country, challenging state and local infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.

Might we dedicate this thread to news of such lawsuits?

__________________________

Here are some of the ones I know about ... please send more, and please correct me if I am mistaken.

HELLER-ERA LAWSUITS

Palmer v DC (Gura and SAF) -- challenging their ban on carry
http://armsandthelaw...er_v_dc_lat.php

Heller v DC (Halbrook and NRA) -- challenging various post-Heller laws in DC
http://volokh.com/po...217308399.shtml

Nordyke v King (Kilmer and CalGuns) -- challenging gun show bans on county property
http://wiki.calgunsf...Nordyke_v._King


MCDONALD-ERA LAWSUITS

SAF/Grass Roots NC v North Carolina -- challenging state "emergency powers" to ban guns
http://www.prnewswir...s-97375354.html

Benson v Chicago -- challenging many of Chicago's new ords
http://thetruthabout...123-26-NDIL.pdf

Franzese v Chicago -- challenging ban on gun shops
http://www.pjstar.co...o-gun-ordinance

Mountain States Legal Foundation -- challenges Nevada's ban on guns in state parks
http://www.courthous...07/15/28837.htm
http://www.lasvegass...an-state-parks/

Rev. Jonathan Wilkins v state of Georgia -- challenging state ban on defensive arms in churches
http://www.google.co...1Yk_cQD9GRPG7O2

Kachalsky v New York state -- challenging "good cause" requirement for issuance of carry permits
-- Note this is another SAF/Alan Gura lawsuit
http://www.prnewswir...t-98536679.html

NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action -- challenges CA AB962 ammunition restrictions
http://www.nraila.or...ad.aspx?id=5968

SAF suit against Maryland -- challenges the state's discriminatory-issue law
http://www.prnewswir...l-99564804.html
http://www.examiner....sue-law-is-best

Truckers/NRA/CalGuns suit against California -- challenges the state's ban on ammunition shipping
http://www.nraila.or...ad.aspx?id=5983

SAF/ISRA/Action Target suit against Chicago --
challenges new ordinance banning gun ranges
http://www.prnewswir...-100772069.html
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#2 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,515 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 28 June 2010 - 12:57 PM

Sounds like a wonderful idea!
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#3 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,743 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:08 PM

Are there plans to go after anything right here in IL/Chicago. AR-15 ban/FOID/Transportation law????
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#4 Gary

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 04

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:21 PM

I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.

#5 SmershAgent

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:30 PM

I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.


The FOID is no different than a poll tax. If it's challenged at the right time, with the right plaintiff(s), and under the right circumstances, I'd consider it one of the most likely state regulations to be overturned.
My right to own a gun protects your right to tell me I can't

#6 johnyt101

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:35 PM

I cant wait and see how the 7th Circuit handles the remaining Chicago charters that were challenged in McDonald. I do not see how any of them can pass constitutional muster. A big component to watch for is how the court handles the anual regitration and fee.

That will give us a good look as to how they will rule on the FOID card.

#7 Ashrak

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:38 PM

I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.


The FOID is no different than a poll tax. If it's challenged at the right time, with the right plaintiff(s), and the under right circumstances, I'd consider it one of the most likely state regulations to be overturned.

A poll tax is exactly what the FOID card constitutes. One way to avoid a dangerous (to the gun grabbers) challenge is to make it free of charge.
That an individual right exists requires that certain policy positions be removed from the table of debate.


I write, therefore I am.

"It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks." - Andrew Breitbart referring to the Mainstream Media.

#8 Ashrak

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:06 PM

Question:

How much weight will Thomas' contribution carry in coming suits, and while we are at it, how much weight will it carry in the 7th regarding how McDonald plays out there?
That an individual right exists requires that certain policy positions be removed from the table of debate.


I write, therefore I am.

"It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks." - Andrew Breitbart referring to the Mainstream Media.

#9 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 855 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:09 PM

I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.


The FOID is no different than a poll tax. If it's challenged at the right time, with the right plaintiff(s), and the under right circumstances, I'd consider it one of the most likely state regulations to be overturned.

A poll tax is exactly what the FOID card constitutes. One way to avoid a dangerous (to the gun grabbers) challenge is to make it free of charge.

...and then, of course, the state will stop funding it as there's no money in the state's budget to pay for that program, so nobody will be able to obtain a card...
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#10 Air Commando

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,130 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:23 PM

Well if you need a military member who is from out of state who was forced to buy a FOID card let me know, I'll be the plaintiff.

#11 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:26 PM

Well, I should have said lawsuits filed and/or moving after McDonald. I will begin compiling them in the first post.

Let's not speculate about what MIGHT be filed ... please. Let's talk about what HAS been filed.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#12 Ashrak

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:49 PM

Well, I should have said lawsuits filed and/or moving after McDonald. I will begin compiling them in the first post.

Let's not speculate about what MIGHT be filed ... please. Let's talk about what HAS been filed.

GF just imposed a "common sense and reasonable" First Amendment regulation on this thread.... http://illinoiscarry...tyle_emoticons/default/smiliestirthepot.gif

Just playin' bro. Just playin'.
That an individual right exists requires that certain policy positions be removed from the table of debate.


I write, therefore I am.

"It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks." - Andrew Breitbart referring to the Mainstream Media.

#13 1957Human

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:00 PM

Malone v. Rice may be the next in line.
Life Member of GOA

#14 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:23 PM

Malone v. Rice may be the next in line.


In explanation (see the link below for the defendent's webpage) , the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and especially in the home for self defense. Maloney involves the illegal possession nof nunchaku in the defendent's home (New York case):

Maloney v. Rice
Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#15 1957Human

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:48 PM

Malone v. Rice may be the next in line.


In explanation (see the link below for the defendent's webpage) , the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and especially in the home for self defense. Maloney involves the illegal possession nof nunchaku in the defendent's home (New York case):

Maloney v. Rice


Yes, I'm familiar with the facts. I do believe the defendant raised, as an issue, the breathe of the 2nd. And SCOTUS has
Life Member of GOA

#16 1957Human

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,438 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 07

Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:48 PM

[oops.... where's that delete button?]

As I was wanting to say, SCOTUS has left the case pending for some time now, and it may implicate the 2nd as well.
Life Member of GOA

#17 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:07 PM

I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.


The FOID is no different than a poll tax. If it's challenged at the right time, with the right plaintiff(s), and under the right circumstances, I'd consider it one of the most likely state regulations to be overturned.


A tax of $1 a year? Would it be any better if they said Ok - no fee FOIDs?

There are far bigger fish to fry, and the FOID card should be way down the list, since it is such a minor infringement, and one likely to be upheld. We need WINNING cases, not potential losers that even if we win we get nothing from it.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#18 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:12 PM

We have fourums for gear, illinois politics, national politics etc etc.

Why don't we start a forum for litigation/court cases ?? We can dump all the legal stuff there
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#19 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,728 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:49 PM

We have fourums for gear, illinois politics, national politics etc etc.

Why don't we start a forum for litigation/court cases ?? We can dump all the legal stuff there


+1

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#20 Gary

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 04

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:03 AM

We have fourums for gear, illinois politics, national politics etc etc.

Why don't we start a forum for litigation/court cases ?? We can dump all the legal stuff there

Well, if we are making requests, I would like to see a locked thread that lists and describes legislation that has been passed and signed by the governor that has anything to do with self defense. If there is already one on the forum, I apologize and will be thankful for the direction to the thread. I am getting old and I can't see too good and stuff. :P :rolleyes:

#21 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,743 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:11 AM

We have fourums for gear, illinois politics, national politics etc etc.

Why don't we start a forum for litigation/court cases ?? We can dump all the legal stuff there


+1

+2
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#22 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:40 AM

http://blogs.wsj.com...-be-litigation/
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#23 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,743 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 29 June 2010 - 09:43 AM

I wonder if this decision could help the last few may issue states go to shall issue. "Restrictions"
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#24 SirMatthew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,117 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 08

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:06 AM

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/06/29/in-the-wake-of-big-gun-control-ruling-there-will-be-litigation/


Also: http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

Excerpt: Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said, "We're going to go everywhere cynical politicians attempt to pervert, defy or nullify the decision."
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.

#25 SmershAgent

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:18 AM

I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.


The FOID is no different than a poll tax. If it's challenged at the right time, with the right plaintiff(s), and under the right circumstances, I'd consider it one of the most likely state regulations to be overturned.


A tax of $1 a year? Would it be any better if they said Ok - no fee FOIDs?

There are far bigger fish to fry, and the FOID card should be way down the list, since it is such a minor infringement, and one likely to be upheld. We need WINNING cases, not potential losers that even if we win we get nothing from it.


I don't consider being compelled to purchase a piece of identification from the government in order to exercise a fundamental right a minor infringement (regardless of the cost), particularly in light of the capricious way the ISP has been going about issuing FOIDs.
My right to own a gun protects your right to tell me I can't

#26 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,743 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:30 AM

[quote name='SmershAgent' date='29 June 2010 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1277828282' post='220071']
[quote name='bob' date='28 June 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1277780852' post='219990']
[quote name='SmershAgent' date='28 June 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1277753435' post='219860']
[quote name='Gary' date='28 June 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1277752903' post='219854']
I will bet that there will be a challenge very soon. The FOID may pass constitutionality but the provision in current law that requires FOID holders to transport (carry) their weapons without ammunition in them may be struck down as unconstitutional because it makes no sense to "bear" unloaded arms.
[/quote]

The FOID is no different than a poll tax. If it's challenged at the right time, with the right plaintiff(s), and under the right circumstances, I'd consider it one of the most likely state regulations to be overturned.
[/quote]

A tax of $1 a year? Would it be any better if they said Ok - no fee FOIDs?

There are far bigger fish to fry, and the FOID card should be way down the list, since it is such a minor infringement, and one likely to be upheld. We need WINNING cases, not potential losers that even if we win we get nothing from it.
[/quote]

I don't consider being compelled to purchase a piece of identification from the government in order to exercise a fundamental right a minor infringement (regardless of the cost), particularly in light of the capricious way the ISP has been going about issuing FOIDs.
[/quote]
I know and that's what scares the heck out of me about the ISP being the final issuing agencey for CCW. If they're pulling the crap they are now just think of the shenanigans they'll try to pull for carry licenses. Of course a strong 2A supporting governor who will appoint a strong 2A ISP director may help that but......
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#27 Geekybiker

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 10

Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:44 PM

There are far bigger fish to fry, and the FOID card should be way down the list, since it is such a minor infringement, and one likely to be upheld. We need WINNING cases, not potential losers that even if we win we get nothing from it.


The FOID isn't a small fish. You forget that the foid represents a substantial barrier to owning a firearm in Illinois for a new owner. Its not the money that is the issue. Its the 30+ day wait for the ISP to process your application, before you are even allowed to *look* at firearms. I've known a number of my friends who were interested in firearms but where put off by the long wait time to get the card. I would bet alot of people get put off the same way.

#28 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,773 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:51 PM

There are far bigger fish to fry, and the FOID card should be way down the list, since it is such a minor infringement, and one likely to be upheld. We need WINNING cases, not potential losers that even if we win we get nothing from it.


The FOID isn't a small fish. You forget that the foid represents a substantial barrier to owning a firearm in Illinois for a new owner. Its not the money that is the issue. Its the 30+ day wait for the ISP to process your application, before you are even allowed to *look* at firearms. I've known a number of my friends who were interested in firearms but where put off by the long wait time to get the card. I would bet alot of people get put off the same way.


Welcome to the forum, and glad that you are interested in these issues.

While FOID isn't a small fish (a mandated 30-day delay to exercise a fundamental right!), there are indeed still some very large fish swimming about. I think that FOID can fall given strict scrutiny, or at least be modified to accommodate "instantaneous approval" period until one's card arrives ... this is all going to take time.

In my view, the most onerous offense is the strict banning of handguns in Chicago; after that, the strict prohibition on bearing arms statewide (both of which would be affected via preemption of gun laws), and so on, and so forth.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#29 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,713 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 29 June 2010 - 12:54 PM

There are far bigger fish to fry, and the FOID card should be way down the list, since it is such a minor infringement, and one likely to be upheld. We need WINNING cases, not potential losers that even if we win we get nothing from it.


The FOID isn't a small fish. You forget that the foid represents a substantial barrier to owning a firearm in Illinois for a new owner. Its not the money that is the issue. Its the 30+ day wait for the ISP to process your application, before you are even allowed to *look* at firearms. I've known a number of my friends who were interested in firearms but where put off by the long wait time to get the card. I would bet alot of people get put off the same way.


No, the FOID isn't small potatoes. But, it will take a huge fight to get rid of it. Now, look at returns on your investment. It will also take a huge fight to gain state wide pre-emption of gunlaws (maybe not as much now with McDonald) and it will also be a struggle to gain RTC (although it is very doable!). Now, what would you rather have, RTC, be able to drive anywhere in the state under one law or gain $1 per year and get rid of a plastic card??

Of the above, the lack of RTC is the only one that is costing us lives in this state and allowing stalkers to seek unarmed prey. Let's get it first, then we'll work on the others.

And, Drylok is correct. A 2A friendly governor and a more 2A focused legislature will go a long way to smoothing the path. Might even let us work on more than one thing at a time. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out which canditate for governor is 2A friendly.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#30 SirMatthew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,117 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 08

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:31 PM

Moving beyond Chicago, the SCOTUS ruling has an impact on every state of the nation. As of yesterday SCOTUS declared the 2A is incorporated against the states, all 50 of them. "Shall not be infringed" suddenly means something in every state of the union! Most of those states have carry laws which, more or less, honor the 2A so little changes for their citizens. However, IL is the only state that does not have a carry law. What I'm about to say is unique to our state alone.

Technically, IL laws forbidding carry of a firearm by all (a blanket prohibition) should be deemed null and void by the SCOTUS ruling yesterday. No, SCOTUS didn't come right out and say that, but by incorporating the 2A against the states that is essentially what they ruled. The state of IL has no choice but to honor that SCOTUS ruling, meaning it can no longer maintain a blanket prohibition against the carry of all firearms by all citizens.

IL can no longer infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, but they can regulate it according to SCOTUS. Other states already have regulations in place concerning the legal carry of a firearm, but IL does not. No form of carry is legal, a direct violation of the 2A which they must now honor. IL has no regulations on the books to tell us who can carry, when, where, and how. There is a vacuum in IL at this present moment concerning RTC. In the absence of such regulation we are essentially, as of yesterday, just like Alaska and Vermont. We do have to abide by the FOID regulations, but there are no carry regulations in place to restrict us further. IL has to allow carry in some form, but since they haven't spelled out which forms are forbidden all forms of carry are acceptable. It could be argued we will remain this free until the ILGA comes up with and passes an RTC law with which we must comply.

Why should we have to remain a "right infringed" state while waiting several months for the ILGA to come up with a RTC bill (maybe next Spring?) when the 2A is incorporated against our state right now? We are free as of yesterday to carry because the IL law which forbids all forms of carry is no longer Constitutional. I know, the police would disagree and they would make an arrest, but they would be wrong in doing so. It is no longer an option to consider all forms of carry to be illegal. SCOTUS said our right can be regulated and since there are no regulations in place to define what type of carry is legal we default entirely to "shall not be infringed".

Even if the ILGA passes a RTC bill (unlikely at this moment), Quinn would probably veto it. The trend of the past 18 years could continue for another 18 years if they keep playing games like this. Why should we play their games when we have the freedom we have been wanting right now? Think of how quickly the ILGA would pass a carry law to get these open- and concealed-carriers under control if we all started exercising the right we secured in IL yesterday.

This would produce results much faster than a boycott of Chicago and I'm sure there are some sheriffs and AG's out there (downstate maybe?) who would support this reasoning. If planned properly, the sheriffs just might actually support an open-carry rally in a town square as being one of the first groups of citizens to exercise their new rights in IL. The news of it would send the ILGA scrambling to pass a RTC law ASAP just to put some restraints on us!

Am I way off base here or is there some merit to what I've said? Any comments appreciated as you all know I'm not a lawyer or legal expert.

Edited to add: Maybe it's this logic of reality which caused Daley to move so fast in drafting new ordinances. I suspect the politicians and such know there is a vacuum which must be filled with regulations quickly lest all the citizens start exercising the fullness of their freedoms right now. But this goes beyond the Chicago ban and registration scheme as the 2A also makes reference to bearing arms as well.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." -- Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.