|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Assuming all of this doesn't relegate the Handgun Safety Certificate to the unconstitutional bin (possibly unlikely given how "reasonable" training seems to be interpreted by not only this ruling but the judiciary in general), that seems a better target than the DMV. Except it becomes another valid state issued ID, right?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson 9mm + 5.56mm = .45ACP + 7.62 NATO = 10mm + 6.8 SPC = Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14 |
#322
|
||||
|
||||
Thx, Al.
Quote:
Did you factor in MLK's birthday (Jan 21), and President's Day (Feb 18)?
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#323
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The court does not have the power to make a law Constitutional or not, only to observe that it is or is not. In Moore, the court has told the world that it has observed that the law is Unconstitutional. It is not within the court's legitimate power to declare that the law in question has legal weight anyway, for no law which is void under the Constitution has legal weight, period. To say otherwise is to directly contradict Marbury v Madison, and that way lies great peril for the court system itself and for the republic.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 12-13-2012 at 10:07 AM.. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#325
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
"The 7th has reversed Moore. They haven't told us why yet, but I'm sure that they have a good reason..." Quote:
Take the decision here: apparently folks in Illinois have the right to bear arms outside of the home. Shouldn't I, here in California, have that right as well? Right now? And yet, that's not how the system works. : shrug : -- Michael |
#326
|
||||
|
||||
No, the law was always Unconstitutional, but it wasn't until the decision that the courts realized this.
The "from that point of time" I was referring to was in response to your question about "between the exact moment the court makes an internal decision and the date of publish". It was intended to make it clear that the Unconstitutionality of the law did not start at point of publish, but prior to it. Apologies for the confusion. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, the 7th Circuit has no jurisdiction over California, so its decisions are "persuasive" but not binding. We will get a different decision from the 9th Circuit (which issues decisions that are binding on California) on the California law, and I fully expect the 9th Circuit to refuse to import the reasoning used in Moore, unless that reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court (and the 9th Circuit might refuse to apply it even then, at least the first time around. That's less likely, but still possible). Only time will tell.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#327
|
||||
|
||||
Just wanted to point this is going to be really test of what the NRA can do. They don't have to play the game to get CCW for people. They are able to dictate terms, not sure if the NRA has had this opportunity. If they only pass CCW reform this will be massive failure on there part. I would hope most of the laws, FOID CCW, state preemption all come to pass. Don't screw it up NRA
|
#328
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#329
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Wrong. That bill was pre-decision. The bill will be entirely rewritten in January, with almost no compromising. |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
I thought that obvious. If they do nothing, their entire carry ban gets struck down and both open and concealed carry are legal. Given that, pro-gun legislators in IL have big leverage to force the anti-gun legislators in line, because there's nothing said anti-gun legislators hate more than people carrying guns without their permission.
|
#332
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There is a pretty big difference between doing nothing and sweeping away all gun controls.
__________________
Quote:
|
#333
|
|||
|
|||
True, but why should the pro-gun majority accede to them?
|
#335
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So, how it stands now, the pro-gun legislature can say to the antis: "Take our version of the bill, or we'll stall for 181 days, and the entire state will be de-facto constitutional carry, as there will no longer be any state law concerning the carry of concealed weapons". It appears a pro-gun majority in Illinois is in the driver's seat, as far as writing the concealed carry law goes. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#337
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Honestly, NO ONE IN AMERICA, outside a hard core of passionate advocates, cares that much about gun rights, for or against. Certainly hardly any elected officials anywhere care enough to put their reelections on the line. I have yet to see a politician of national stature stand up and declare, unequivocally, that assault weapon bans (for example) make no sense and should be repealed, let alone the supermajority of any state legislature. Quote:
Anyway, I hate making predictions, and I'm not going to make a prediction here. I was curious about the rationale behind this suggestion that Illinois was now poised, because of a narrow CA court decision, to enact sweeping gun law reforms. I now recognize the reasoning, but I still don't buy it. We'll see what happens.
__________________
Quote:
|
#338
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#339
|
|||
|
|||
That's an interesting point, Mitch, that having to go back to the constituency with "I did nothing to stop constitutional carry" is a leverage point for the antis. My initial reaction (and post to this thread) was
Quote:
ETA: Thought about it a bit more, and it will never be the legislature taking the blame for constitutional carry, it would be the governor. The legislature crafts a shall-issue bill, submits it to the governor, who vetoes it. It's then on the governor, not the legislature, that constitutional carry is now the law of the land (as far as Illinois is concerned). Last edited by ebourqui; 12-13-2012 at 2:13 PM.. |
#340
|
||||
|
||||
Retracted … based on Librarian’s retraction.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I don't mean to be a complete wiseass, but understand that 'bear' means just that. The Constitution does not specify a manner of carry. The current Supreme Court has apparently viewed this as a requirement some form of carry be allowed...but never said which one folks can choose. Posner appears to have read something in Heller the way some here did: that open carry was the normal, and that concealed carry was an option. I guess history does matter. In either case, absent a law or a stay, after the deadline the possession and carry of a firearm in Illinois is not prosecutable. That won't stop them getting you for other reasons (peace, etc.), but realistically they are Constitutional Carry (kinda, sorta). As for credit/blame...it looks like the legislature is going to send the governor a shall-issue bill. If he vetoes that bill, he gets credit for no-permit carry. That's the way the game works - the last one holding he potato gets his fingers burnt. All this said, I think we're ahead of ourselves. If Madigan gets her en banc review, the pro-gun people in the legislature will have a weaker hand to play. That is the next big step.
__________________
------ Some Guy In Maryland |
#342
|
||||
|
||||
Here's an example:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#343
|
|||
|
|||
The court said that bearing a weapon outside the home is a fundamental right. The law being challenged will be stricken in 180 days. If the legislature doesn't pass a law that respects the courts decision by the end of that 180 days what happens? There is no longer any law on the books preventing one from carrying a weapon concealed in public and there is no legal requirement for training, permit etc. this is what Mitch was referring to.
|
#344
|
||||
|
||||
Here's my prediction. FOID isn't going anywhere. We will get stand your ground, state preemption, and shall issue with not many hoops to jump through and mosy of the debate will be on somethinglike college campus carry. Even though we have virtually all the control now we wwon't get everything we want because some would rather have constitutional carry than have FOID go away.
|
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My point being, "You can't tell the players without a program." and there is a whole lot of inside baseball that is going to happen that we here in Cal have no visibility into. Only prowling the halls the the Illinois statehouse will get a good line-item by line-item vote count.. This is going to be a very personality-driven process. Everything else is throwing darts in the dark. My prediction: Find out what the 8 or so most power committee chairs most want -- that is what the bill will look like.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. == |
#347
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Quote:
|
#350
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is not a matter of "concealed carry". It would conceivably include open carry. For all. I hate to pick nits, especially considering I am not a big OC proponent for urban areas. But a can of worms opens on this theoretical "Day 181". Open Carry could conceivably end up costing votes for permissive Shall-Issue in the long run. When lawmakers from Chicago's exoburbs start fielding calls about all the gun nuts thinking it is wild west time, they will fall off the fence in a direction we don't like. I think OC makes sense in a number of cases. I got disabled family for whom OC is the only practical carry method. But I also worry about "activists" strutting their gear in busy areas in a state where literally the day before it was illegal to have a gun in the hallway outside your apartment, or even in the garage of your own home. Social change cannot be that fast, and IL people will still be subject to laws of the legislature. Given enough calls, they will do what every legislature does: make the problem go away.
__________________
------ Some Guy In Maryland |
#351
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#353
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The Supreme Court has (apparently) suggested that historical understanding was that one form of carry (open) was acceptable, while another (concealed) was not. They appear to have read this history to say that a state may choose a manner of carry, but not extinguish all forms of it. At least, that is what our team is arguing. So absent a law specifying a manner of carry, there is nothing wrong with either. Maryland is in the same boat. We don't have a manner of choice specified. Quote:
Didn't mean to speak to Illinois social policy as any type of expert. I made some assumptions about the state, but admit that my experience is mostly with family in the heart of Chicago. But even in Maryland, I advise our members not to poke the beast. Carry is for defense, not for activism. If OC makes sense for them, then do it. But don't do it just to prove they can. If you poke enough, anything can happen.
__________________
------ Some Guy In Maryland Last edited by Patrick-2; 12-13-2012 at 4:14 PM.. |
#355
|
||||
|
||||
State preemption is a definite. Removing FOID is not in the cards.
|
#357
|
|||
|
|||
Quoting Gray:
Quote:
WTF are you trying to say here? |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#359
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What I'm saying is that we have the advantage and we can sit and wait for FOID carry to occur. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
FOID carry? I guess that is more accurate than constitutional carry. Maybe the legislature should push for FOID carry.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|