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This topic has been archived.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

#31 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:54 PM

,,,,,,,,,,(TRUNCATED QUOTE)
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. ... 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 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. In the absence of such regulation we are essentially, as of yesterday, just like Alaska and Vermont.


I am not a lawyer either but if the sheriff did not arrest you, the state police could and, based on the new mandatory law sponsored by Kirk Dillard, you would go to prison.
I think that the argument would be that there is, in fact, a carry law in place in Illinois and to carry (transport) your firearm you must go through a background check via the FOID card, the firearm must be fully enclosed in a container, and it must be unloaded.
I find that to be totally unacceptable, of course, but until the law is changed, that is the state of affairs in Illinois.
I do not want to be the plaintiff in the case that challenges the constitutionality of that landscape by openly, purposefully and unabashedly ignoring the provisions of article 24.


#32 Ashrak

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:02 PM

Governor Quinn should call a Special Session into order this week, the purpose of which is to bring Illinois Criminal Code into compliance with the McDonald and Heller decisions.
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.

#33 Ashrak

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:04 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. ... 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 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. In the absence of such regulation we are essentially, as of yesterday, just like Alaska and Vermont.


I am not a lawyer either but if the sheriff did not arrest you, the state police could and you would go to prison based on the new mandatory law sponsored by Kirk Dillard. I think that the argument would be that there is a carry law in place and to carry (transport) your firearm you must go through a background check via the FOID card, the firearm must be fully enclosed in a container, and it must be unloaded.
I find that to be totally unacceptable, of course, but until the law is changed that is the state of affairs in Illinois. I do not want to be the plaintiff in the case that challenges the constitutionality of that landscape by openly, purposefully and unabashedly ignoring the provisions of article 24.

Enclosed in a container? Sounds kinda like that would be concealed carry, which is not lawful. Hmmm. Such a tangled web we weave....
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.

#34 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:06 PM

I am not a lawyer either but if the sheriff did not arrest you, the state police could and you would go to prison based on the new mandatory law sponsored by Kirk Dillard. I think that the argument would be that there is a carry law in place and to carry (transport) your firearm you must go through a background check via the FOID card, the firearm must be fully enclosed in a container, and it must be unloaded.
I find that to be totally unacceptable, of course, but until the law is changed that is the state of affairs in Illinois. I do not want to be the plaintiff in the case that challenges the constitutionality of that landscape by openly, purposefully and unabashedly ignoring the provisions of article 24.


'scuse me there Gary, what "mandatory law" sponsored by Dillard do you speak of?? Bill number?? Citation of the statute??

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


#35 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:18 PM

House Bill 5832 requires mandatory imprisonment for one to three years for an individual who is 18 years or older, who does not have a valid FOID card, and who possessed a loaded and uncased firearm. The penalties would also apply to those who are caught in possession of an unloaded, uncased firearm with ammunition accessible if they do not have a valid FOID card.

Currently, individuals convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon could see one to three years in prison and a $25,000. However, until House Bill 5832 is signed into law, imprisonment is not mandatory for individuals convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.

As far as I know, Quinn has not signed it yet, so perhaps I should have said "proposed" law. And this "proposed" law deals most directly with the possession or lack thereof of a FOID card. So make sure you don't leave it in your other pants. I'll bet that having been issued a valid FOID card would not be any protection for you if you didn't have it with you at the time of the arrest.

Sorry!!!!

At my age, I can't even keep track of my glasses. :b) :P :rolleyes: :lol:



#36 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,013 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:42 PM

SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA'S
'EMERGENCY POWERS' GUN BANS

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Grass Roots North Carolina - the state's leading gun rights organization, and three private citizens, Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr. Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit contends that state statutes that forbid the carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also contend that a North Carolina law that allows government officials to prohibit the purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are also unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by Monday's Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Second Amendment ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.

SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association took the McDonald Case to the Supreme Court.

"Through this lawsuit in North Carolina," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb," we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster."

SAF is once again being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who led the legal effort in the McDonald case and also won the historic Heller ruling that overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008. Local counsel are Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis with the firm of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC in Raleigh.
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#37 SirMatthew

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:45 PM

Note though that I clearly said we would need to abide by the FOID law.

I am not a lawyer either but if the sheriff did not arrest you, the state police could and, based on the new mandatory law sponsored by Kirk Dillard, you would go to prison.
I think that the argument would be that there is, in fact, a carry law in place in Illinois and to carry (transport) your firearm you must go through a background check via the FOID card, the firearm must be fully enclosed in a container, and it must be unloaded.
I find that to be totally unacceptable, of course, but until the law is changed, that is the state of affairs in Illinois.
I do not want to be the plaintiff in the case that challenges the constitutionality of that landscape by openly, purposefully and unabashedly ignoring the provisions of article 24.


First, let me acknowledge that what I wrote is probably "way out there", but sometimes unintended consequences like this happen and we need to take advantage of it. By doing so we put IL politicians on the defense and stir them to action rather than let them toss the ball around to waste time indefinitely.

A side story, but remember the Berlin Wall. There was a misstatement in a 1989 speech when an East German official declared the border was now open when in fact it was not. (http://www.4vf.net/w...wall-came-down/) It was the people taking immediate advantage of that situation to cross the borders freely in mass numbers which caused the change to become permanent. They didn't wait around for more officials to confirm the truth before they tried to cross the border, they took it at face value and ran with it.

We can talk about IL law and wait for state courts to affirm what the higher federal court said yesterday is really true, but why not take it at face value and run with it now? Even if we are in the wrong they will have to deal with our mis-perception.

Ok, so maybe there aren't many of us who want to risk being arrested conducting this kind of experiment. It might be worth spreading the rumors of how we perceive our present reality to be in order to get our politicians to act preemptively with an urgently-needed RTC law to set the record straight.

"Oh gee...we were wrong...thank you politicians for clarifying what kind of carry is now legal in our state. Good thing you acted so quickly as we were all just about to start carrying however we wished."
"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.

#38 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 03:47 PM

Sir Mathew,
I hope you don't think that I was just trying to "shoot down" you or your idea. I meant no disrespect at all. In fact, everyone here deserves respect simply because we have the same goals. I was simply trying to add to the conversation and perhaps help come up with a plan of attack. With this ruling there are a lot of opportunities and I hope we take advantage of all of them.
And you are correct, you did say that the FOID law would have to be obeyed and therefore the mandatory part may not actually be a factor if and when it is signed but my reasoning is the same. Please, I understand your intent and I hope that you will accept my intentions as being a positive in our search for liberty as well.

MOLON LABE

#39 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:03 PM

SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA'S
'EMERGENCY POWERS' GUN BANS

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, seeking a permanent injunction against the governor, local officials and local governments from declaring states of emergency under which private citizens are prohibited from exercising their right to bear arms.

Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Grass Roots North Carolina - the state's leading gun rights organization, and three private citizens, Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr. Named as defendants in the federal lawsuit are North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue; Reuben Young, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; Stokes County and the City of King. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit contends that state statutes that forbid the carrying of firearms and ammunition during declared states of emergency are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also contend that a North Carolina law that allows government officials to prohibit the purchase, sale and possession of firearms and ammunition are also unconstitutional because they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights as affirmed by Monday's Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Second Amendment ruling that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states.

SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association took the McDonald Case to the Supreme Court.

"Through this lawsuit in North Carolina," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb," we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster."

SAF is once again being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who led the legal effort in the McDonald case and also won the historic Heller ruling that overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2008. Local counsel are Andrew Tripp and Kearns Davis with the firm of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLC in Raleigh.


That is good. One could argue that the murder rate and gang activity in Chicago could be declared an "emergency" situation. Well, I would bet that Daly would try it if he thought he could get away with it. :frantics:

#40 PPK

    Innocent Bystander

  • Members
  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 08

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:22 PM

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?



The idea of this thread was good but it sure has gone off on a tangent.
It's a wonderful day in the hood...

#41 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:26 PM

Check this out ..... Associated Press, no less. And I happen to think Volokh is quite wrong on this semiauto ban.


http://www.google.co...oGQcOgD9GL62S00

Gun law challenges likely after high court ruling
By MARK SHERMAN (AP) 29 June 2010

WASHINGTON State or local gun laws that prohibit people from carrying firearms outside the home and onerous registration requirements are the most likely to be struck down by judges following the Supreme Court's latest decision supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

An explosion of cases will keep courts busy for years defining gun control's new limits now that the high court has ruled that wherever they live, Americans have a right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home.

Justice Samuel Alito, author of the majority opinion Monday, dismissed "doomsday proclamations" that all gun laws would be struck down. Alito essentially repeated the formulation used by Justice Antonin Scalia two years ago that the court was not calling into question "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

But the justices left a lot of ground for other courts to cover in determining the constitutional limits on gun laws. Legal challenges already are pending against several state and big-city gun laws.

Among other laws already facing lawsuits or expected to be challenged:

_Age limits that bar people younger than 21 from buying or owning guns.

_Lockbox and trigger-lock requirements to keep guns away from children.

_One-gun-a-month purchase limits in California, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia.

_Georgia's prohibition on carrying guns into churches.

_Bans on guns in bars.

_California's outlawing of certain handguns.

_Assault weapons and ammunition bans.

_Federal and state prohibitions aimed at keeping domestic violence offenders from having guns.

Local officials around the country professed confidence that their regulations would hold up under legal scrutiny, but many scholars were not so sure.

"I think a lot of these will fall," said Temple University law professor David Kairys, a gun control proponent. "Can you limit people's ability to carry concealed weapons, or open weapons? That's noticeably absent from the majority's list of what you can do."

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law school professor who has written extensively on these constitutional issues, predicted challenges to the ban on assault rifles will fail because judges will conclude that people still will be "free to have lots and lots of guns."

But he said attempts to eliminate carrying restrictions probably will fare better because gun rights advocates can argue that their right to self defense means that they should be able to carry their weapons almost wherever they want, with exceptions for government buildings and schools.

Drawn-out permitting processes in New York and elsewhere also are ripe for a challenge, Volokh said. "I think a court will have no problem upholding a one-, two-, five-day waiting period," he said. "But if you're talking about a five-month wait, then a court may find it's a substantial burden."

New York restricts who can possess and carry guns, allowing handgun permits only to applicants of "good moral character." New Yorkers who want to carry their weapons must show "good cause" in addition to character, under a 99-year-old law.

James Jacobs, a New York University law professor, said the high court presumes people have a right to a gun unless the government can show there's a good reason to prevent it.

The ruling, Jacobs said, "casts a long shadow over New York City's gun regulations."

San Francisco officials are defending their law that bans handguns kept at home unless they are stored in a locked container or have their trigger locks engaged. Washington, D.C., where the court struck down a handgun ban in 2008, is facing a new federal lawsuits over its registration law and refusal to allow people to carry weapons outside the home.

Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor, said courts might decide that in places with tough registration laws, restrictions on where guns can be carried may be less important and vice versa.

But Berman said he expects some of the hardest questions will deal with people making a case to be armed for self-defense. "Can a state say no guns on college campuses? That's someone's home," Berman said.

Many federal criminal defendants already have sought to challenge gun charges pending against them based on the Supreme Court's decision in 2008, and "there are likely a significant number of state criminal defendants" who will do the same, Berman said.

One category of challenges could come from people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes because the high court offered assurances only about laws that bar felons from having guns.

Family Violence Prevention Fund lawyer Jennifer White said she expects stepped-up challenges to laws that seek to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of domestic violence. "It would be a horrible danger to battered women and children if that aspect of the law is eliminated," White said.

Associated Press writers Greg Bluestein in Atlanta, Sara Frazier in New York, Trevor Hunnicutt in San Francisco and Thomas Watkins in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#42 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:52 PM

San Francisco officials are defending their law that bans handguns kept at home unless they are stored in a locked container or have their trigger locks engaged. Washington, D.C., where the court struck down a handgun ban in 2008, is facing a new federal lawsuits over its registration law and refusal to allow people to carry weapons outside the home.


Every time I hear someone talk about trigger locks, a locked container, etc. I think about about my greatest source of truth -- Movie Westerns.
In this case, while Marshal Rooster Cogburn was on the the witness stand there was this exchange:
Goudy: Now is it not true that you sprang up on old man Wharton and his two sons with a deadly, six shot revolver in your hand?
Rooster Cogburn: I always try to be ready.
Goudy: Was this revolver loaded and cocked?
Rooster Cogburn: Well, a gun that's unloaded and cocked ain't good for nothin'.


#43 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 15 July 2010 - 11:14 AM

A few more added.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#44 1957Human

    Member

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

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:33 PM

Every time I hear someone talk about trigger locks, a locked container, etc. I think about about my greatest source of truth -- Movie Westerns.
In this case, while Marshal Rooster Cogburn was on the the witness stand there was this exchange:
Goudy: Now is it not true that you sprang up on old man Wharton and his two sons with a deadly, six shot revolver in your hand?
Rooster Cogburn: I always try to be ready.
Goudy: Was this revolver loaded and cocked?
Rooster Cogburn: Well, a gun that's unloaded and cocked ain't good for nothin'.


That's weird. We just watched True Grit last night! (If we have time, tonight's fare will be High Noon.)
Life Member of GOA

#45 1957Human

    Member

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

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:54 PM

Check this out ..... Associated Press, no less. And I happen to think Volokh is quite wrong on this semiauto ban.

***
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law school professor who has written extensively on these constitutional issues, predicted challenges to the ban on assault rifles will fail because judges will conclude that people still will be "free to have lots and lots of guns."


I agree with your view, based on the Court's statements in Heller that the Second Amendment protects the possession of weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." How could this not be a description of semiautomatic "assault" rifles? The quantity of guns ("lots and lots of guns") has got nuthin' to do with it.
Life Member of GOA

#46 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 15 July 2010 - 02:21 PM

Updated ... with a good one!

SAF/Gura challenge NY on their carry permits. Eat ****, Bloomie!!
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#47 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 16 July 2010 - 09:44 PM

Updated
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#48 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 29 July 2010 - 04:48 PM

Updated.

If all these suits aren't clearly "writing on the wall" for Illinois, Wisconsin, and other places such as, I just don't know what to say.

With each and every one of these suits, our leverage in Springfield grows!
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#49 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:30 AM

Updated to add new suit against Chicago.

Related information:

http://onlygunsandmo...on-updates.html


Mishaga v. Monken

This is a new case that has flown under the radar. It was filed at the end of July by the Mountain States Legal Foundation on behalf of Ellen Mishaga, an Ohio resident, against the head of the Illinois State Police for denying her a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card. Mrs. Mishaga contends that as a frequent visitor to the State of Illinois she is precluded under Illinois law from possessing a firearm for self-defense in a residence because she doesn't have a FOID card. The only exceptions to the requirement to possess a FOID card are those there to attend a shooting competition or those who possess an Illinois non-resident hunting license. Neither of these exceptions applied to her. Accordingly, she applied for a FOID card and was denied twice because she doesn't have an Illinois driver's license or state ID card - both of which she is not eligible to possess.

I will have a more extensive and separate post on this case soon.

This case is being brought in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#50 w00dc4ip

    Member

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

Posted 20 August 2010 - 08:39 AM

Still waiting to see the law suit against the State of Illinois to overturn the UUW and Agg UUW statutes (as well as the FOID transportation requirements) that make it illegal to simply carry a loaded firearm.

I'd file it myself if I had the resources to see it through.

Heller specifically described the meaning of the Operative Clause, "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." (Heller Ruling, page 19, Section II.A.1.c. first sentence, emphasis mine.)

McDonald incorporated this against the states.

Any Illinois citizen that exercises their fundamental right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation" currently faces arrest and a felony charge. Where is the SAF, ISRA, NRA, etc. on this? If the case is quietly in the works, so be it, but it should be filed before the legislature returns to session. The legislature could be somewhat forced to write a carry law if they're facing a federal judge potentially putting an injunction on the state, stopping police from arresting people for UUW or Agg UUW. An injunction would be big news, which, without immediate action by the legislature, would bring de facto constitutional carry to the state of Illinois until the legislature corrected the "problem".

I realize the way to get carry in Illinois is through the legislature, but that doesn't mean they can't be compelled to act by a federal judge as well as the voters.
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

#51 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,468 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 20 August 2010 - 10:56 AM

Still waiting to see the law suit against the State of Illinois to overturn the UUW and Agg UUW statutes (as well as the FOID transportation requirements) that make it illegal to simply carry a loaded firearm.

I'd file it myself if I had the resources to see it through.

Heller specifically described the meaning of the Operative Clause, "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." (Heller Ruling, page 19, Section II.A.1.c. first sentence, emphasis mine.)

McDonald incorporated this against the states.

Any Illinois citizen that exercises their fundamental right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation" currently faces arrest and a felony charge. Where is the SAF, ISRA, NRA, etc. on this? If the case is quietly in the works, so be it, but it should be filed before the legislature returns to session. The legislature could be somewhat forced to write a carry law if they're facing a federal judge potentially putting an injunction on the state, stopping police from arresting people for UUW or Agg UUW. An injunction would be big news, which, without immediate action by the legislature, would bring de facto constitutional carry to the state of Illinois until the legislature corrected the "problem".

I realize the way to get carry in Illinois is through the legislature, but that doesn't mean they can't be compelled to act by a federal judge as well as the voters.


The legislature will pass a law redefining what "confrontation" means.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#52 SirMatthew

    Member

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

Posted 20 August 2010 - 11:22 AM

Still waiting to see the law suit against the State of Illinois to overturn the UUW and Agg UUW statutes (as well as the FOID transportation requirements) that make it illegal to simply carry a loaded firearm.

I'd file it myself if I had the resources to see it through.

Heller specifically described the meaning of the Operative Clause, "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." (Heller Ruling, page 19, Section II.A.1.c. first sentence, emphasis mine.)

McDonald incorporated this against the states.

Any Illinois citizen that exercises their fundamental right to "carry weapons in case of confrontation" currently faces arrest and a felony charge. Where is the SAF, ISRA, NRA, etc. on this? If the case is quietly in the works, so be it, but it should be filed before the legislature returns to session. The legislature could be somewhat forced to write a carry law if they're facing a federal judge potentially putting an injunction on the state, stopping police from arresting people for UUW or Agg UUW. An injunction would be big news, which, without immediate action by the legislature, would bring de facto constitutional carry to the state of Illinois until the legislature corrected the "problem".

I realize the way to get carry in Illinois is through the legislature, but that doesn't mean they can't be compelled to act by a federal judge as well as the voters.


I'm with you w00dc4ip.

According to my own math, getting a RTC bill through Cullerton/Madigan onto the floor for a vote, actually having enough votes to pass it in the ILGA, and having a new governor in place to sign it gives us about a 5% total chance of victory. We may very well beat those odds and I fully support it, but I'm also open to anything else we can do to improve our chances. Personally, I'm still trying to learn what options are out there.

A complaint with the AG might not have any greater chance of working, but it can't have much less of a chance than a RTC bill either. The same could be said about lawsuits, court actions, trying to convince a DA to declare some laws will no longer be prosecuted (as happened in WI), or other similar pursuits. I think the real issue comes down to a matter of control.

Now this is just my opinion, but I believe the NRA (and some other groups) probably don't want to pursue things through an AG complaint because they don't have much influence there. They don't like losing control of the ball, so to speak. The same could be said of lawsuits, for the courts would have control and the NRA could not influence things much. In my opinion, the NRA wants to focus on the legislature because they want to (and can) exert some influence over lawmakers as well as control some of the language of the RTC bill itself. This does not necessarily have to be a negative comment about the NRA and some other groups, but only recognizing that is where their strengths exist. My strengths do not exist in that arena so I am applying them elsewhere, even without the support of these groups. If my actions happen to interfere with their efforts (or vice versa), well, that's just part of the risk we all take. Hopefully that won't happen, but rather one of those many efforts does produce positive results.
"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.

#53 GarandFan

    Member

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

Posted 21 August 2010 - 07:28 AM

According to my own math, getting a RTC bill through Cullerton/Madigan onto the floor for a vote, actually having enough votes to pass it in the ILGA, and having a new governor in place to sign it gives us about a 5% total chance of victory.


I don't wish to side-track here from the issue of post-McDonald litigation, but I would suspect that given a friendly governor, the probability of passing shall-issue in Illinois is rather higher than 5%. Much higher than 5%. If you care to share, I'd like to see this math. And if Todd is listening (and can comment), it would be interesting to get his perspective. On this issue, he's got as good of a handle on the legislature as anyone.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#54 SirMatthew

    Member

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

Posted 23 August 2010 - 08:22 AM

According to my own math, getting a RTC bill through Cullerton/Madigan onto the floor for a vote, actually having enough votes to pass it in the ILGA, and having a new governor in place to sign it gives us about a 5% total chance of victory.


I don't wish to side-track here from the issue of post-McDonald litigation, but I would suspect that given a friendly governor, the probability of passing shall-issue in Illinois is rather higher than 5%. Much higher than 5%. If you care to share, I'd like to see this math. And if Todd is listening (and can comment), it would be interesting to get his perspective. On this issue, he's got as good of a handle on the legislature as anyone.


What are the odds we can get a RTC through Madigan/Cullerton and onto the floor? I'll use 50% here, but you can play with other numbers.

What are the odds there are enough votes in the ILGA to pass that bill? We've only managed to do this once in my adult lifetime (later vetoed by Edgar), so are the odds 1 in 20? Higher? I'm going to use 1-in-5 odds (20%) because we've now got incorporation.

What are the odds the Gov signs the bill? It depends on who is Governor: With Quinn it's nearly 0% while it's closer to 100% with Brady. What are the odds we can get Brady elected this November? The polls are running in his favor, but the undecideds make this still a tight race. I'm going to use a 50% chance here, but you can play with any of these numbers and draw your own conclusions.

50% times 20% times 50% = 5%

If we get Brady elected we can remove that figure from the line of math and we are left with: 50% times 20% = 10%

We can use higher numbers if we're really optimistic, but no one can guarantee 100% success here. Whatever the numbers are, it's not pretty:
80% x 80% x 80% = 51%, but even with Brady as Governor we only bump up to a 64% chance (80% times 80%) of getting RTC.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try because we can and will beat those odds one of these days, but at the same time I don't yet have a reason to get my hopes up. Maybe I will after the election.
"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.

#55 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

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

Posted 23 August 2010 - 08:54 AM

SirMatthew,

You're trying to take a passionate, hotly debated topic and reduce it to hard numbers. Can't be done. First, you state that there is a very poor chance of getting RTC through Madigan/Cullerton. Today on Aug 23, you may be right. But I submit that the chances, even today, might be higher than you think. Post election, all your figures are out the window and a whole new legislature begins. With a new gov (which looks more promising every day) a few seats flipped in key areas, and a few folks that are finally fed up with Daley's antics in spite of McDonald, you might see a whole new roll call in the legislature re: RTC.

Couple that with the fact that a positive election for us means a negative election for Madigan/Cullerton. Means that deals must be done and votes traded for pet projects. You never know what might get put on the table!!

I know it's hard to stay positive right now. I wish the election was tomorrow so we'd know where we stand. But, we've got to wait a couple more months. In that time, we must do all we can to get the right folks elected ALL ACROSS the state.

Keep the faith, we are closer than we've ever been.

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


#56 SirMatthew

    Member

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

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:14 AM

SirMatthew,

You're trying to take a passionate, hotly debated topic and reduce it to hard numbers. Can't be done. First, you state that there is a very poor chance of getting RTC through Madigan/Cullerton. Today on Aug 23, you may be right. But I submit that the chances, even today, might be higher than you think. Post election, all your figures are out the window and a whole new legislature begins. With a new gov (which looks more promising every day) a few seats flipped in key areas, and a few folks that are finally fed up with Daley's antics in spite of McDonald, you might see a whole new roll call in the legislature re: RTC.

Couple that with the fact that a positive election for us means a negative election for Madigan/Cullerton. Means that deals must be done and votes traded for pet projects. You never know what might get put on the table!!

I know it's hard to stay positive right now. I wish the election was tomorrow so we'd know where we stand. But, we've got to wait a couple more months. In that time, we must do all we can to get the right folks elected ALL ACROSS the state.

Keep the faith, we are closer than we've ever been.

AB


You are correct in saying the numbers change all the time, but the math still stands as nearly any interdependent series of events can be applied to this kind of formula. For example, if I get an A on all my tests and am never late to class then I can get an A in the course, but I've always been a C student with a tendency to doze in class so what are the odds I can really pull that off? I not only have to consider my past performance, but the difficulty of the class and how much future effort I will devote to getting that A grade. There isn't a way to account for unexpected events either, such as a pop quiz. So you are right in suggesting these are not hard factual scientific numbers, but I believe they are fair and reasonable numbers as of this moment in time. These are basically the same odds we face every year, but if you do something enough times you'll eventually get lucky and score a win. We have to keep trying, despite the odds against us.

However, the whole point I was aiming to make is that things are not really all that hopeful at this particular moment in time as it relates to getting a RTC bill passed through the legislature. Why would I feel the need to make that point? Because very few seem to think there is much of a chance for success through a lawsuit, but a RTC bill offers so much more promise. Personally, I don't see much difference between a lawsuit and a RTC bill when it comes to chances of getting our rights recognized, but how could I have made this point in any other way aside from using math? Disagree with the math if you'd like, I won't be offended, but I do hope my point was not overlooked. Lawsuits should have been filed in IL within minutes of gaining incorporation, just as the Chicago case was filed within minutes of the Heller 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.

#57 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 23 August 2010 - 12:33 PM

Lawsuits should have been filed in IL within minutes of gaining incorporation, just as the Chicago case was filed within minutes of the Heller decision.


I totally agree with you. In fact, several years ago, I made a comment that I thought our best chance of having RTC in Illinois would be through the courts. (I don't know if it was on this site that I said that or if it was on the old John Birch Concealedcarry.com message board, but I was just raked over the coals and the opinion was almost 100% that our efforts should be legislative.) With the Heller and McDonald case, I think I stand vindicated!!! But we still seem reluctant to take to the courts in Illinois and I know that the courts are packed, but maybe if we lose we could take our failed case to the Supreme Court and that is especially true now that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated.

What should our position be? Well, just like the first amendment, there should be some things that you can not say and, likewise, there should be certain restrictions on firearms. However, those restrictions should be as limited as the limits on free speech in that you can not shout "FIRE" in crowded theatre. I think the restriction of no carry for mental institutionalization for five years after such treatment is reasonable, but that is about it. And felons? What ever happened to the idea of having paid your debt to society? That is especially true now that there are so many non-violent ways of committing a felony. If the felon is too unreliable to allow access to a firearm, then keep him in jail!!!!!! I would accept the restriction of unaleanable rights while on parole, also. After all, those restrictions are based on the actions of that individual. Otherwise, no restriction on the access to the tool necessary for defense of home and family should be permitted unless through "due process" based on the actions of each individual involved. How can the law make a felon out of our ex-military people (and many others) just because they have a self-defense need? If I am so stupid, violent, or unreliable that my access to a firearm should be restricted, then I should have my day in court before my unalienable right is denied. That will only happen in states like Arizona and it will only happen very slowly but if it is to happen in Illinois in my lifetime, the courts are the only way -- not that the legislative process should be ignored. No!!! We need a full court press on all venues.

#58 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 23 August 2010 - 02:50 PM

SirMatthew,

You're trying to take a passionate, hotly debated topic and reduce it to hard numbers. Can't be done. First, you state that there is a very poor chance of getting RTC through Madigan/Cullerton. Today on Aug 23, you may be right. But I submit that the chances, even today, might be higher than you think. Post election, all your figures are out the window and a whole new legislature begins. With a new gov (which looks more promising every day) a few seats flipped in key areas, and a few folks that are finally fed up with Daley's antics in spite of McDonald, you might see a whole new roll call in the legislature re: RTC.

Couple that with the fact that a positive election for us means a negative election for Madigan/Cullerton. Means that deals must be done and votes traded for pet projects. You never know what might get put on the table!!

I know it's hard to stay positive right now. I wish the election was tomorrow so we'd know where we stand. But, we've got to wait a couple more months. In that time, we must do all we can to get the right folks elected ALL ACROSS the state.

Keep the faith, we are closer than we've ever been.

AB


Just getting an actual floor vote on RTC will be a step we haven't seen in years.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#59 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Members
  • 9,346 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 23 August 2010 - 02:53 PM

Lawsuits should have been filed in IL within minutes of gaining incorporation, just as the Chicago case was filed within minutes of the Heller decision.


I totally agree with you. In fact, several years ago, I made a comment that I thought our best chance of having RTC in Illinois would be through the courts. (I don't know if it was on this site that I said that or if it was on the old John Birch Concealedcarry.com message board, but I was just raked over the coals and the opinion was almost 100% that our efforts should be legislative.) With the Heller and McDonald case, I think I stand vindicated!!! But we still seem reluctant to take to the courts in Illinois and I know that the courts are packed, but maybe if we lose we could take our failed case to the Supreme Court and that is especially true now that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated.

What should our position be? Well, just like the first amendment, there should be some things that you can not say and, likewise, there should be certain restrictions on firearms. However, those restrictions should be as limited as the limits on free speech in that you can not shout "FIRE" in crowded theatre. I think the restriction of no carry for mental institutionalization for five years after such treatment is reasonable, but that is about it. And felons? What ever happened to the idea of having paid your debt to society? That is especially true now that there are so many non-violent ways of committing a felony. If the felon is too unreliable to allow access to a firearm, then keep him in jail!!!!!! I would accept the restriction of unaleanable rights while on parole, also. After all, those restrictions are based on the actions of that individual. Otherwise, no restriction on the access to the tool necessary for defense of home and family should be permitted unless through "due process" based on the actions of each individual involved. How can the law make a felon out of our ex-military people (and many others) just because they have a self-defense need? If I am so stupid, violent, or unreliable that my access to a firearm should be restricted, then I should have my day in court before my unalienable right is denied. That will only happen in states like Arizona and it will only happen very slowly but if it is to happen in Illinois in my lifetime, the courts are the only way -- not that the legislative process should be ignored. No!!! We need a full court press on all venues.


I'm not so sanguine about achieving carry via the courts. Such a case is already underway in DC. I can see SCOTUS eventually requiring states to allow some form of carry, but that is years away and highly dependent upon maintaining our majority.

Courts can only get us so far. To achieve all we need, we have to use the legislative route. Might as well get started on it.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#60 Gary

    Member

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

Posted 23 August 2010 - 04:43 PM

As I said in my post we must use the legislative process but we should also press hard in the courts. I was told the same thing about the courts taking a long time and thus the need to elect the right people and get legislation, but here we are and we are much closer to getting the legislation we need BECAUSE OF court rulings. We have to be really active on BOTH fronts. The left has moved us away from the ideals of our founders by using the courts to get what they could not get through an election. We can learn a lesson there.

I'm done on this subject. I don't try to make horses drink or convince anyone of how right I am. Why? Because sometimes I'm wrong and if planting the seed of understanding is not enough then I have to think that either I am, indeed, wrong or my audience is not susceptible of looking at my point of view and "drink" it up. Either way, I am willing to help implement any action that will further our cause as long as I am not asked for help at the last minute unless the only thing that is required is a body to help fill a room. (Attn: Molly)