|
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 |
#721
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
One key part of the Illinois debate is known as the "may/shall" issue. Gun rights advocates want it clear that permits shall be issued to anyone who fits within the letter of the law. But gun control lawmakers think it is better to have a "may issue" standard to give authorities discretion when there is a legitimate reason to prevent somebody from having a gun. Wrong. 1) May Issue does not give authorities authority "to prevent someone from having a gun," but rather, to prevent a legal gun owner from legally carrying it in public (concealed and/or openly, depending upon the law). 2) In May Issue authorities always have the discretion to deny someone a carry permit. Not getting the permit is the default standard. It is up to the applicant to prove to the issuing authorities' satisfaction that they have an actual need to carry a handgun before the permit is issued. The authorities do not need to justify a denial other than to say the applicant's Good Cause insufficient for getting a permit.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#722
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
North Korea State News has more credibility then that waste of space by the Chicago River.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be. -Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream. |
#723
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So far as I am concerned, a denial of our civil liberties for one minute is intolerable. So far as the courts are concerned, a delay of years is evidence of the courts working at breakneck speed.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#724
|
||||
|
||||
Indeed. We’ve played our part politely … but we were rewarded with a legalistic sucker punch. That’s bound to make anyone angry, so I will fly the caution flag until we’re out of danger.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#725
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Quote:
Thank you! Having someone recognize what I've been saying for years is actually quite gratifying. Quote:
Actually, the idea was to show the soccer moms that guns are NOT all that scary. That we, their neighbors, have guns, carry guns in their presence & that nothing bad happened as a result of this. By & large, this was the result that I personally saw on my OC expeditions. Quote:
I've spent the last couple of years urging that we do exactly as you suggest now. For the exact same reason you state here. Welcome to the Dark Side! Quote:
This is NOT the guy we want to carry the ball for us. This should be done, but we need to find a competent lawyer quick before Mr Nichols screws things up. Quote:
Only IF going for unlicensed LOC is part of the attack plan. It hasn't been so far. Quote:
I disagree. We took the losses in those cases as a sign that it was the criminal aspect that bothered the courts. They didn't actually say that though, did they? I'm of the opinion that it was the "concealed" aspect that bothered them. So, maybe it's time to pick a 'clean' criminal defendant & represent him? Since time is short (the Heller-5 really aren't getting any younger), maybe find somebody 'clean' that's already in the pipeline? Hell, since time is short maybe we should be happy if we can find someone that we can live with as a defendant? Quote:
I disagree. The 19th 'carry cases' (Nunn, etc) weren't mentioned in Heller just for fun. I think that they were mentioned because they were hinting rather strongly that unlicensed LOC is what they had/have in mind for the "and bear" part of the Right. And this would be consistent. After all, you don't need a permit to exercise any other Constitutional Right, do you? Yes, you do need a permit for a parade (as one example), but (as I've pointed out before), the permit is to allow you to disrupt traffic, NOT to express your POV. Quote:
I disagree. It is legally & Constitutionally inconsistent to say that a state may not infringe upon a Right, but that a city may. The 7th Circuit would slap that sort of thing down fairly quickly, I think. Quote:
And this is why I think that. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#726
|
|||
|
|||
Raisuli
-The trouble isn't the legality, but the logistics. We cannot simultaneously drag every Illinois anti-gun city and municipality into court, which is what would be needed because every single town would have a slightly different ordinance regarding carry, or the restrictions thereof. If a statewide law were the problem-as it was with the Unlawful Use of a Weapon rule that banned carry-it would be "relatively" painless to strike down. Unfortunately with thousands of towns writing their own gun laws , a verdict against one won't strike down the laws of its neighbors.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be. -Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream. |
#727
|
||||
|
||||
The Supreme Court is never going to mandate unlicensed open carry. See my post above.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#728
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I dispute that it was really all that "clear." I thought/think that the reference to Nunn, etc was the part that was clear. Time seems to prove me right. It wouldn't take all that long to strike down the school-zone ban. At present, even though its horribly weak (legally & Constitutionally speaking), it survives because we have NOTHING to attack it with. It just doesn't affect an activity that's Constitutionally protected. Once LOC becomes the Minimal Constitutional Standard nationwide though, things change. Then we will have a tool to attack it. No PRK judge will strike it down, but a Federal judge will. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#729
|
||||
|
||||
The Supreme Court has signaled the Illinois legislature that, while a de jure ban on carry (no issue) is intolerable, a de facto ban (may issue) is not. So we will get what New York has and Ms. Madigan will, contentedly, move on to other things.
|
#730
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The logistics are the same as they were with "separate but equal" drinking fountains & such. It wasn't necessary to sue each & every little city & town to get them gone. The same approach that was used for that Civil Rights fight should be the model for this Civil Rights fight. Especially since the 7th Circuit has spoken so clearly. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#731
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#732
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
SCOTUS most likely wants a better case, and is waiting to see how the current crop of cases plays out in the various circuits. They still have plenty of time to grant cert for a decision by June of 2014. And they may very well combine some of the remaining cases concerning both may-issue and no-issue. |
#734
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The type of carry, restrictions, conditions, sensitive places, etc., will have to be resolved later, after we have additional Circuit rulings. The pass in Kachalsky indicates that they are not even ready to discuss restrictions (may-issue), let alone address the open vs. concealed carry puzzle.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#735
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#736
|
|||
|
|||
Logic
Quote:
Moore offers exactly that. Personally, I think it highly unlikely SCOTUS would rule that LOC is protected while concealed is not. They just want to affirm that bear means loaded, functional carry, then leave it to the states to determine which (or both) they want. Let's just hope that they also give some indications as to scrutiny, since it seems this is the road we are on. |
#737
|
||||
|
||||
Will Madigan appeal?
If the Illinois AG does not appeal the 7th CA decision she's pretty much stuck with some form of carry and she'll lose a bunch of Chicago voters.
If Madigan does appeal and loses at SCOTUS, she's no further behind, and may pick up some votes because "at least she tried". And there's always a chance she'll win. My current thinking is that the politics of the matter are biased towards Illinois appealing Moore. What am I missing? |
#738
|
||||
|
||||
I think they could have accomplished that with Kachalsky, but we’ll see with Woollard back in play.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#739
|
|||
|
|||
Options
Quote:
Problem (for them) is the IL legislature is pro-gun and is going to either pass a very permissive, shall issue bill or nothing at all. Quinn would absolutely veto a shall issue bill. At that point, the only options still on the table is to beg the 7th for an extension of their stay(unlikely to be granted), ignore the 7th altogether (very risky and Madigan alone would bear the political fallout), or ask for cert. Their remaining options are painful for them but delightful for us!!!!! The least painful is to ask for cert. This makes sense for Madigan both legally and politically. Personally, this is the case I think SCOTUS wants. Simple and clean, plus they get to whack Illinois again. If she requests cert and SCOTUS denies, I will be very worried as I don't think Woollard is what they are waiting for. They want Moore. They don't even need to write new law. All they have to do is affirm the ruling of the 7th. Hopefully, they would also include some language as to scrutiny and shall -vs- may issue, but I'll take a win either way. |
#740
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
She's running for governor in a state controlled by the party run by her pops. With her dad in charge of the State Legislature,Illinois wont get carry.Either an anti gun carry law is passed, or the clock runs out and each city becomes empowered to ban CCW as they see fit. As such Lisa Madigan doesnt need to file cert to stop carry: that "problem" will be solved via other means.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be. -Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream. |
#741
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Michael Madigan controls enough of the IL legislature to prevent a veto override- so while the antis can't pass whatever they want,they've got enough pull to block any pro gun carry bill from becoming law. If the deadline passes without a statewide law,each city and county becomes authorized to grant or deny carry as they see fit- which means no carry at all for most Illinois residents.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be. -Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream. |
#742
|
||||
|
||||
Well, we certainly have no shortage of denied LTC requests. I -for one -would like to see the type of suit discussed above initiated.
__________________
NRA Life Member SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club) CCRKBA Life Member Madison Society Life Member CRPA Life Member |
#743
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#744
|
|||
|
|||
Silliness
Quote:
So, it's your assertion that IL can simply ignore the ruling in the 7th with impunity and just not respond at all? And, we're to believe that the 7th and SCOTUS will do nothing? Nothing at all? They'll just throw up their hands and allow IL to ignore them? |
#745
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-16-2013 at 12:55 PM.. |
#746
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It looks like it was farther than they were willing to go on the first date.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#747
|
|||
|
|||
Fruit
Quote:
This issue before them now is entirely different. They lost Moore at the circuit (unlike McDonald, which they won). The 7th overturned the previous ruling and declared "bear" to be a right. He then stayed his ruling for 180 days so they could decide what to do. Their choices are: 1. Request en-banc. They did and were denied. 2. Pass a law allowing bear of some sort. R dominated legislature will not play ball with them, so that's out. 3. Apply for cert. 4. Ignore the Federal court. It is my contention they will do #3 as it is the least painful. It is one thing to pass silly laws that infringe on a right and claim you think they meet the standard of scrutiny. It is quite another to simply ignore an order from a Federal court. SilverTauron and others seem to imply that the Federal courts would be powerless should this happen. They are not powerless and have an assortment of tools at their disposal. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. You go look it up for yourself. To think that a Federal court would do nothing when challenged is simply naive. Judges tend to take their rulings pretty seriously. Ignoring them altogether would not be wise. There are other reasons they will ask for cert too and they should be self evident, given your opinion of how some legislatures and courts reacted to McDonald. |
#748
|
||||
|
||||
I'm pretty unhappy with the Court's decision to deny cert in Kachalsky - I thought it was a pretty clean case, presented the issue of shall-issue v may issue cleanly and Gura wrote a great petition for cert. That being said, I find one thing in this denial that gives me hope. None of the justices wrote to express their disagreement with the denial. Thomas is as close as you can get to a pure originalist on the court and given the wording in Heller pertaining to the definition of carry, I'm pretty sure Scalia believes the 2nd requires the right to carry. Neither of these justices are exactly shrinking violets and if they disagree with a decision, even to deny cert, they'd let us know why. Since they didn't write a dissent from the denial of cert, I think that there's a reason to this that is in line with their views as originalists.
Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that they think Woolard or Moore will give them a shot to either create a more unified opinion, a cleaner precedent or something more productive for the second amendment.
__________________
"All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." Daniel Boone "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993 |
#749
|
||||
|
||||
The 7th Circuit is not the 9th. Illinois is not California, socially or politically. All this talk about "ignoring rulings" is bunk.
I'm predicting the legislature will send Quinn a shall-issue bill with moderate restrictions on places of carry (but no BS perimeter/proximity rules) some time next month, and he will sign it. He's threatened vetoes before on issues such as the repeal of capital punishment and civil unions: and yet he wound up signing both. There's a reason he's called "Jello" in that state. |
#750
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quinn is running for re-election against Lisa Madigan,and he's doing poorly at the polls so far.His only effective play for the Democratic nomination is to undermine Lisa Madigan, and he can't do that signing a shall issue carry bill.As long as he stonewalls a viable carry.bill,he keeps Lisa Madigan in the hot seat: does she file for cert and roll the dice,or does she stand aside and let down the millions of Chicago voters expecting her to go down swinging? If she declines and Quin vetos carry,he can rub it in by saying he's strong on crime while Lisa Madigan cowed to the "gun lobby" by not going to the SCOTUS.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be. -Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream. |
#751
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#752
|
||||
|
||||
On this issue Illinois has turned into the quintessential rock and the hard place. This is chess strategy at its pinnacle. Very interested to see how this unfolds. If the Governor vetoes he gets Vermont style carry. If he signs shall-issue legislation he betrays his base.
If Madigan does not appeal, she risks appearing soft on guns. If she does appeal and loses, she could help extend carry rights to the whole country. I can only imagine how that colors her long range political aspirations. The only thing that has to happen for this rub to play out is for the pro-gun folks in the legislature to stick to their, well, guns. They cannot compromise on shall issue.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 04-17-2013 at 11:42 AM.. |
#753
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Blame downstate Republicans for Chicago's problems |
#754
|
||||
|
||||
With our expectations for Kashalsky proven false, everything else is rank speculation. All I can do for now is get more serious about planning a possible evacuation from this state.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#755
|
||||
|
||||
I can see SCOTUS denying cert in Kachalsky for two reasons. First, having a devious mind, I can imagine certain justices denying cert in order to embolden Madigan to petition for cert in Moore. After all, the denial in Kachalsky in some peoples minds is telegraphing SCOTUS' belief that the 2nd amendment may be limited to the home as Madigan believes. If she believes that SCOTUS agrees with her then overturning the 7th circuit would be the way to cement it.
Secondly, as much as Gura attempted to make Kachalsky a carry case, it really looks like a concealed carry case. All of the argument revolves around NY's concealed licensing scheme and the relief requested is to have NY issue concealed carry permits. If SCOTUS believes that open carry is protected and concealed carry can be regulated as the 19th century cases cited in Heller indicated, another case would be the one to deal with this (Moore or Woollard). Moore being the best since SCOTUS can achieve this by striking down a single law without getting into trying to decide with part of which law need to be struck in Kachalsky. We all know that if OC is required to be legal, CA, NY, NJ, MD and the rest will fall head over heals convincing people to CC. |
#756
|
||||
|
||||
That's part of the goal of our Democrat commissars in Sacramento. By making it all but impossible for us to keep our guns they see an opportunity to drive gun owners out of the state and shift the state further left. It doesn't matter if Jerry vetoes them this year because they'll pass the same bans on pretty much anything and everything gun related and get them signed by Governor Newsom in 2015. Frankly if I could afford to move I'd be writing this from Arizona, Utah, or Texas.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#757
|
||||
|
||||
May-issue is dead in Illinois. Failed by a whopping 31 to 76.
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state...ment_form=true It's shall-issue or the "cliff" and shall-issue is up for vote today (4/18). |
#758
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-17-2013 at 10:15 PM.. |
#759
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#760
|
||||
|
||||
Prepared or not, the resulting challenges will take many months to several years (Ezell started off as being a preliminary injunction case and it took 11 months to get a ruling from the appeals court).
__________________
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|