Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:34 AM
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Fyathyrio Fyathyrio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 881
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankW438 View Post
Great minds think alike! I didn't think about using this as leverage to repeal the FOID card...
Who was the nice lady from Ohio that wanted an FOID, and is her case still active? This might be a nice Christmas gift for her...and anybody else that might like to carry their weapon across a state line legally.
__________________
"Everything I ever learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." - John McCain
"Use your hammer, not your mouth, jackass!" - Mike Ditka
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Earl Jones
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:37 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Something tells me that Grey Peterson and some of the CGF members may very well win their bets with those steak dinners pretty soon.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:39 AM
ayemossum ayemossum is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: In the desert, about halfway between Somewhere and Somewhere Else
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Does Moore v. Madigan change anything in Cal?

Ok so today's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Moore v. Madigan finds (as we all already know) that the 2nd Amendment applies to the right to carry firearms in public.

“...the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door."

“The Second Amendment,” Judge Posner writes, “states in its entirety that ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=415

Will this decision help us here, or will we have to wait for the case to inevitably be taken to SCOTUS?

Considering of course that the "may issue" law here is, in some counties (L.A., S.F., etc) "may issue" is "won't issue," meaning that carrying publicly is de facto banned, this decision should require a legislative change here (no, i do realize that i need oxygen and am not holding my breath).

Thoughts?

Last edited by ayemossum; 12-11-2012 at 12:24 PM.. Reason: district? circuit? who's counting?
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:41 AM
schneiderguy's Avatar
schneiderguy schneiderguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: San Jose, California, U.S.A. Earth
Posts: 488
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Great news
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:45 AM
saint7's Avatar
saint7 saint7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sunny Yucca Valley Ca.
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I am a law illiterate and forgive me if this question may be nieve.... but will this open up doors for us here in California? I know right now in SB county it is a long wait for your CCW permit. Maybe this will open up doors to streamline the wait.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:48 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,224
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saint7 View Post
I am a law illiterate and forgive me if this question may be nieve.... but will this open up doors for us here in California? I know right now in SB county it is a long wait for your CCW permit. Maybe this will open up doors to streamline the wait.
not directly as we are in the 9th circuit here, this case was from the 7th. But it can be persuasive to the 9th as they are now reviewing the 2 carry cases here from CA.

I'm sure there will be some supplimental filings to the 9th to notify them of this decision and it's bearing on the CA cases.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:49 AM
hornswaggled's Avatar
hornswaggled hornswaggled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,653
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1BigPea View Post
Oh I can't wait to see how the Brady's spin this one! "There will be blood flowing down the streets as wild lawless men run around with guns in both hands!"
So business as usual in Chicago then.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SAF Defender's Club
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:53 AM
LYU370 LYU370 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.
Not necessarily, I think we've got the anti's pissing their pants:

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."

And Rep. Phelps, who has pepeatedly introduced bills:

Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.

We'll see what happens, but I'm guessing we get a pretty good carry bill.

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:54 AM
saint7's Avatar
saint7 saint7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sunny Yucca Valley Ca.
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Thanks Untamed1972.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:54 AM
hornswaggled's Avatar
hornswaggled hornswaggled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,653
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Let's all move to Chi-town!

Never thought I'd say that.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SAF Defender's Club
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:54 AM
uyoga's Avatar
uyoga uyoga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...

Yeah . . . . a loss to Illinois.
__________________
Non verbis sed operis
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:55 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,875
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
Is this decision possible to be cited in California counties or is the scope limited to Illinois state? My initial impression was this could only be cited in Illinois... Huge victory tho and really shows the impact of the Heller decision!
It can be cited as authoritative precedent in the 7th District.

It can be cited as "FYI" outside the District. Meaning it doesn't control the other district, but may influence it's reasoning somewhat. And also clue other districts that if they directly contradict, they're setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle to decide who's right.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:00 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uyoga View Post
Yeah . . . . a loss to Illinois.
Edited my post
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:14 PM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow.. too bad this didn't come before Kachalsky. I don't know what everyone else is reading though. I'm just finishing the Kachalsky portion and basically Posner said that you cannot have a blanket ban, but the state deciding who most needs a permit is A-OK since it limits the persons who may carry.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:18 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,829
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Seems like not enough of a split against Kachalsky or Masciandaro to force supreme court review.

ETA: kalchasky/masciandaro summary is on page 17-19. Main holding P.20-21. Dissent starts on 21. I mostly skimmed
before about 15, but it's basically heller-style historical analysis, as is the dissent.
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:18 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Wow.. too bad this didn't come before Kachalsky. I don't know what everyone else is reading though. I'm just finishing the Kachalsky portion and basically Posner said that you cannot have a blanket ban, but the state deciding who most needs a permit is A-OK since it limits the persons who may carry.
They also said the need for being armed in the dangerous neighborhood of Chicago is greater than the need to be armed at home. So the standard would be if you can own a gun then you can carry. Defacto shall-issue. It would be nice to see them pass a simple law since Chicago has FOID just to say if you have an FOID that you can carry. But we all know hey will most likely have a training requirement of some sort whether that includes live-fire I wouldn't know.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:20 PM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Wow.. too bad this didn't come before Kachalsky. I don't know what everyone else is reading though. I'm just finishing the Kachalsky portion and basically Posner said that you cannot have a blanket ban, but the state deciding who most needs a permit is A-OK since it limits the persons who may carry.
Don't read into it so much. The court merely compared Illinois law to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation to make the point that the Illinois law is unacceptable by every standard imaginable. This does not mean the ruling rubber stamps may issue laws. It just says even those are less restrictive than the IL law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:22 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBear View Post
Don't read into it so much. The court merely compared Illinois law to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation to make the point that the Illinois law is unacceptable by every standard imaginable. This does not mean the ruling rubber stamps may issue laws. It just says even those are less restrictive than the IL law.
This sort of ruling should help out the Hawaii case i would imagine.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:23 PM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
This sort of ruling should help out the Hawaii case i would imagine.
Hawaii dismissed today.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:24 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 793
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This was a pretty no-nonsense panel - but my favorite quote:
Quote:
It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:25 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Hawaii dismissed today.
Link to that by chance?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:29 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural North Calizuela
Posts: 5,030
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
I think your are correct and, as much as I detest that reality, we need to deal with it.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:39 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Something tells me that Grey Peterson and some of the CGF members may very well win their bets with those steak dinners pretty soon.
Those are going to be tasty steaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
Wanna bet a steak? See, the problem here is that you would have bet me that no carry law would be struck, yet here we are.

The minimum constitutional standard for "bear arms" will be the ability to carry a loaded handgun most places after meeting objective licensing standards and in the manner that the legislature requires. That's the minimum and it will include Madison Ave, Manhattan, NY.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:42 PM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
I don't believe that's true. Pro-gun forces have a majority in the Illinois legislature. They're short of the supermajority needed to override the anti-gun governor, but with this ruling, they don't need a supermajority. They don't even need to vote at all! If they simply stonewall for 6 months, IL goes constitutional carry. Let it sink in a bit. That possibility is so terrifying to the anti-gun governor and Chicago legislators that if they have any shred of sense, they will beat a path to the pro-gun legislators' doors in a frantic effort to pass anything at all short of constitutional carry to prevent the court's ruling from taking effect.

Prior to this ruling, IL anti-gun forces won the waiting game. Now we do. It's a game-changer. They now have to beg us to support something they hate in order to prevent being utterly crushed by the court. That gives us power. We can now demand other concessions, too. Perhaps they would be willing to get rid of the FOID card rather than allow constitutional carry. See? We have leverage!

Last edited by pointedstick; 12-11-2012 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,829
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Those are going to be tasty steaks.


Wanna bet a steak? See, the problem here is that you would have bet me that no carry law would be struck, yet here we are.

The minimum constitutional standard for "bear arms" will be the ability to carry a loaded handgun most places after meeting objective licensing standards and in the manner that the legislature requires. That's the minimum and it will include Madison Ave, Manhattan, NY.

-Gene
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:55 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
We won't see shall-issue in Illinois? The state where they were 2-3 votes shy of a super majority to pass shall-issue very recently? Where the NRA has already said they have the votes for Shall-Issue. Here's my prediction and you can take it to the Bank. Illinois goes Shall-Issue before California, New York, Massachusetts, D.C, New Jersey, and Hawaii.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:00 PM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.
The problem is you assume the anti gun forces in Chicago control the Illinois state legislature. The legislature almost got a decent shall issue bill through with the required 3/5 majority in their last attempt. Why on Earth would they put through a may issue rat's nest now when inaction after 180 days would default to constitutional carry? This ruling is only going to make the next carry bill proposal stronger, because the pro gun forces hold the cards now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:00 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,163
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Ironic, isn’t it?
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA

Last edited by M. D. Van Norman; 12-11-2012 at 1:03 PM.. Reason: Punctuation.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:01 PM
defcon defcon is offline
.22LR Riffle
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Thousand Oaks/SFV
Posts: 2,866
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saint7 View Post
I am a law illiterate and forgive me if this question may be nieve.... but will this open up doors for us here in California? I know right now in SB county it is a long wait for your CCW permit. Maybe this will open up doors to streamline the wait.


Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:03 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.
Yes, Illinois will pass a carry law before the 180 days expire. However, it will be less onerous than California's current concealed carry process. Posner as much as told the Illinois legislature that a law similar to New York's will not pass Constitutional muster. Moreover, for political reasons already discussed above, the pro-gun legislators in Illinois now have very good bargaining power when it comes to drafting the law.

As it currently stands, Illinois will have shall-issue carry before California. What a world.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:07 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 603
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster?
IL is not the most anti-gun state. It does contain perhaps the most anti-gun metro area, but statewide, there's a pro-gun majority.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:09 PM
defcon defcon is offline
.22LR Riffle
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Thousand Oaks/SFV
Posts: 2,866
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

someone buy this judge a steak and beer.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:09 PM
miztic miztic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't think the pro-gun people in the IL legislature are pro-gun to the level of holding out for "foid card" carry*, they'll want to pass something too.
But there should be enough sensible state reps to hold out for a good shall issue bill.


* IL requires a FOID card to even own (or in stores touch) a gun, so even if the ruling goes into full effect, IL still won't be constitutional carry, you still have to get a FOID card, which all things considered is pretty easy to get, $10 + photo, they do a background check and 4-6 weeks later, you get your card and can go shopping.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:11 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,829
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBear View Post
The problem is you assume the anti gun forces in Chicago control the Illinois state legislature. The legislature almost got a decent shall issue bill through with the required 3/5 majority in their last attempt. Why on Earth would they put through a may issue rat's nest now when inaction after 180 days would default to constitutional carry? This ruling is only going to make the next carry bill proposal stronger, because the pro gun forces hold the cards now.
Well I admit I have no idea of the make up of the ILL legislature, but given they have among the most restrictive gun laws in the country, I'll bet they are pretty anti-gun and so are most of the voting public (i.e. most of Chicago) SO assuming this, if the anti's want to keep guns out of the hands of its people (as I assume they do given the laws) they will draft a very restrictive carry law (or narrowly interpret constitutional carry and viola - you have Orange County. NO ONE gets CCW's, but we all have the chance to apply. Virtually unassailable for a constitutional standpoint and they still win b/c no one gets the guns. Just a logical argument. You may be right that the conservatives are storming the gates and may impose shall issue some day, but I'm not holding my breath.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:14 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBear View Post
The problem is you assume the anti gun forces in Chicago control the Illinois state legislature. The legislature almost got a decent shall issue bill through with the required 3/5 majority in their last attempt. Why on Earth would they put through a may issue rat's nest now when inaction after 180 days would default to constitutional carry? This ruling is only going to make the next carry bill proposal stronger, because the pro gun forces hold the cards now.
Why does everyone assume there will be automatic constitutional carry in 180 days? They simply said the decision is stayed for 180 days before the lower district court has to deal with it. Couldn't the lower district court say. Well it's been 180 days and no new law so I will determine the constitutional minimum?
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:17 PM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
Well I admit I have no idea of the make up of the ILL legislature, but given they have among the most restrictive gun laws in the country, I'll bet they are pretty anti-gun and so are most of the voting public (i.e. most of Chicago) SO assuming this, if the anti's want to keep guns out of the hands of its people (as I assume they do given the laws) they will draft a very restrictive carry law (or narrowly interpret constitutional carry and viola - you have Orange County.
You don't seem to understand that Illinois pro-gun forces have a legislative majority. The only reason why IL isn't ALREADY shall-issue is because the anti-gun governor vetoes their bills and therefore requires a supermajority, which they don't quite have. If the anti-gun minority drafts an insulting may-issue bill in order to stave off virtual constitutional carry, the pro-gun majority will laugh in their faces.

The game has changed. Time is now on our side. They have to beg us.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:18 PM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Why does everyone assume there will be automatic constitutional carry in 180 days? They simply said the decision is stayed for 180 days before the lower district court has to deal with it. Couldn't the lower district court say. Well it's been 180 days and no new law so I will determine the constitutional minimum?
It seemed pretty explicit in the final portion of the ruling that the panel was remanding the case to the district court for permanent injunction and a statement of unconstitutionality. Sure seems to me like the carry law is going to be tossed after 180 days.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:18 PM
Regulus's Avatar
Regulus Regulus is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tustin Ranch, CA
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by defcon View Post
Thanks defcon... My coffee just came out of every orifice on my face and I don't care. You just made my day.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:19 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
Well I admit I have no idea of the make up of the ILL legislature, but given they have among the most restrictive gun laws in the country, I'll bet they are pretty anti-gun and so are most of the voting public (i.e. most of Chicago) SO assuming this, if the anti's want to keep guns out of the hands of its people (as I assume they do given the laws) they will draft a very restrictive carry law (or narrowly interpret constitutional carry and viola - you have Orange County. NO ONE gets CCW's, but we all have the chance to apply. Virtually unassailable for a constitutional standpoint and they still win b/c no one gets the guns. Just a logical argument. You may be right that the conservatives are storming the gates and may impose shall issue some day, but I'm not holding my breath.
Where do you get that that Illinois has the most restrictive gun laws in the country? They are probably not even top 10. You can own ARs and AKs with 30 round mags and no bullet button crap in Illinois outside of Cook County. I would much rather have the Illinois Legislature than the one here in Cali.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:19 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
So this was another SAF/NRA joint case? (NRA-ILA?)
Not really. They were separate cases litigating the same thing but in different district courts within IL. However they were combined on appeal. Moore was an SAF funded case and Shepard was an NRA/ISRA funded case if it matters to you.
Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788
MICHAEL MOORE, et al., and
MARY E. SHEPARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Courts for the
Central District of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois.
Nos. 3:11-cv-3134-SEM-BGC and 3:11-cv-405-WDS-PMF—
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 12-11-2012 at 1:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.