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
  #121  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:23 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
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.
They said the total ban was unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the court will just say "180 days are up, no carry laws, carry guns openly or concealed even into state prisons." If that was the case the repubs could use this as an opportunity to seriously repeal virtually every gun law on the books with the threat of just letting constitutional carry be the law of Illinois.
__________________

"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
  #122  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:23 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
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.
Did you see the B-slapping that chicago got in Ezell for trying to do that with their shooting range ban BS?

Every time they try that crap they just piss off the courts more and tighten the noose around their own neck.
__________________
"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
  #123  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:28 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 758
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Call me an optimist but I feel compelled to update my pre-completed California Concealed Carry application....

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the 9th Circuit rules in a similar fashion, we should all be lining up orderly and single file at the Sheriff's office, right?
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:31 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-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
  #125  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:31 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
^Chris, what language you are referring to? The panel addressed NY law, but they said they disagreed with their reasoning.
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. I initially took that as approval. Having now read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (if a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:33 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 758
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Oh boy wouldn't that be fun!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:33 PM
Clownpuncher's Avatar
Clownpuncher Clownpuncher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mexifornia IE
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Ok, dumb question. With this decision being pretty clear in stating that carry is a right outside the home will it have any impact in the legislation requiring states to honor each others CCW permits? Will this perhaps give the legislation a push over the hump so a Florida permit is good in XXXXX state?
Of course this is all for legislation consideration after we Thelma and Louise off the "fiscal cliff"
__________________
Support CalGuns by purchasing stuff through this Amazon link: http://www.shop42a.com

Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:36 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 hoffmang View Post
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene
That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:37 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 Maestro Pistolero View Post
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. I initially took that as approval. Having now read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (if a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.
You have to realize something about Federal Appellate Judges. There are very few of them. They know each other. They go to the same conferences. They like each other. They do not call their peers idiots. They explain why they arrive at a different conclusion than their peers.

Like all generalizations, there are exceptions to the above. For example, Posner and Scalia have little love for each other.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:40 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,658
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownpuncher View Post
Ok, dumb question. With this decision being pretty clear in stating that carry is a right outside the home will it have any impact in the legislation requiring states to honor each others CCW permits? Will this perhaps give the legislation a push over the hump so a Florida permit is good in XXXXX state?
Of course this is all for legislation consideration after we Thelma and Louise off the "fiscal cliff"
I'm sure this case will be especially useful to at least get carry permits issued to nonresidents for states in the 7th.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:40 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownpuncher View Post
Ok, dumb question. With this decision being pretty clear in stating that carry is a right outside the home will it have any impact in the legislation requiring states to honor each others CCW permits? Will this perhaps give the legislation a push over the hump so a Florida permit is good in XXXXX state?
Of course this is all for legislation consideration after we Thelma and Louise off the "fiscal cliff"
I would think at a minimum in states that require a permit, it would require them to issue permits to non-residents if they do not already do so.

I think give it several more years after all states have gone shall-issue/ConCarry, etc and it just becomes more accepted most states will prolly realize its more of a pain in the arse to try and micromanage it and it will go the way of a drivers license, you just have to have one from somewhere.
__________________
"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
  #132  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:41 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 hoffmang View Post
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene
Well then... the NRA needs to take full advantage of what I stated Repeal FOID, repeal all Chicago gun laws and implement state firearm pre-emption similar to Florida. Repeal waiting periods, tear that "gun show loophole" even wider haha. We need to rollback as much as possible. The anti-gunners literally have no choice. They will practically be forced to beg for ONLY shall-issue legislation and for us not to touch their other anti-gun accomplishments.
__________________

"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
  #133  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:43 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 Maestro Pistolero View Post
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. I initially took that as approval. Having now read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (if a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.
You could say that Pol Pot was more moderate than Hitler but that doesn't mean you approve. The reasoning of the Kachalsky opinion was highly criticized for basically ignoring Heller and utilizing what was effectively rational basis.
__________________

"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
  #134  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:47 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,658
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The antis have at least one card to play from my estimation. Without a state shall issue law, I think Chicago can create their own ccw system, which would only pretend to be fair. The pro gunnies need to get the shall issue law passed with language to prevent that, unless I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:47 PM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Well then... the NRA needs to take full advantage of what I stated Repeal FOID, repeal all Chicago gun laws and implement state firearm pre-emption similar to Florida. Repeal waiting periods, tear that "gun show loophole" even wider haha. We need to rollback as much as possible. The anti-gunners literally have no choice. They will practically be forced to beg for ONLY shall-issue legislation and for us not to touch their other anti-gun accomplishments.
Victory sure tastes sweet, doesn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:49 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
You have to realize something about Federal Appellate Judges. There are very few of them. They know each other. They go to the same conferences. They like each other. They do not call their peers idiots. They explain why they arrive at a different conclusion than their peers.

Like all generalizations, there are exceptions to the above. For example, Posner and Scalia have little love for each other.
Maybe that congeniality could be the new model for interaction on calguns. We could also look at the grace with which Alan Gottlieb disagrees with his most vociferous opponents.

Ok, quickly now, back to the topic :

This decision may be all the cover that the Il legislature needs to finally act on shall-issue. if they're smart, they'll just do it and blame it on the court, if they must.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:50 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 Maestro Pistolero View Post
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. Having read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (is a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.
No worries. I thought I may have missed something. I'm still elated over this great victory. I think this decision will help inform the 9th Cir. in Peruta and Richards. I am optimistic (and praying) that we win in the 9th.

Ten months ago I speculated that we had a decent chance to win carry in the Appellate Courts. It sure feels good to have another win.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:53 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 stix213 View Post
The antis have at least one card to play from my estimation. Without a state shall issue law, I think Chicago can create their own ccw system, which would only pretend to be fair. The pro gunnies need to get the shall issue law passed with language to prevent that, unless I'm wrong.
I believe you are correct. Illinois has a system of home rule units, where cities and counties that are sufficiently large are given a huge amount of power over their jurisdictions. The state can only overrule their laws by passing legislation that specifically applies to home rule units with 3/5 majority in both houses of the legislature.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:01 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
I believe you are correct. Illinois has a system of home rule units, where cities and counties that are sufficiently large are given a huge amount of power over their jurisdictions. The state can only overrule their laws by passing legislation that specifically applies to home rule units with 3/5 majority in both houses of the legislature.
Yeah, knowing what we know I don't think the NRA will let that fly. They are going to establish state preemption of some sort whether it's just for concealed carry or gun laws in general. They have almost all the power now. As long as they have 51% of the votes in at least the senate or the house then they could just refuse to vote on any bill that doesn't include the right reforms and I think they might have that 51% that will support major pro-gun reforms.
__________________

"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
  #140  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:04 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
I just can't believe how awesome this decision is. The panel squarely dealt with the second amendment. No dancing around the issue, no coy tactics. It is pure 2A awesomeness. There is no doubt in my mind that this case is the biggest win we have had since 2010 in McDonald. It's pure joy. I'd quote some of it for you, but it's an easy read and everyone should take time to read it. It's not written in legalese.



Big congrats to David Sigale and SAF. Whoo Hoo!

Yes, it IS written so that an Ordinary Mortal can read/understand it. That's pretty unusual for an Appellate Court.

And, yes, it is especially gratifying that it was a pure a 2A case. No dancing around at all.

As for references to Kachalski, it delivered as big a smack-down to the 2nd Circuit as one Circuit gets with another. Clearly written to be a Circuit split. Which we're going to have & need.

Because all of the speculation about what kind of law the Ill. legislature will write is meaningless. Rahm is the mayor & so Rahm will make the decision as to whether to appeal or not. You can bet your lungs on it; he'll appeal. Which (as was the case with Heller & McDonald) is going to be a good thing for us.

The reasoning here may or may not help with the PRK carry cases. Nothing here is binding, but it is persuasive. If the 9th goes along, we'll still have a split because of the 2nd Circuit.

There's not a lot of time for anything to affect the reciprocity Bill. But, it MAY provide 'cover' to those on the fence IF it does come to a vote.

I especially liked the bit about how the other 49 states do things. Nothing here will matter to the PRK legislature, but the gong has been sounded; crap that applies in one state only ain't gonna fly for much longer.

Its not often that that I laugh out loud while reading Appellate Court Opinions, but this one giot me doing so twice: I'm with randomBytes in liking the reference to slashing a "Santa with Elves" painting. But my favorite was the reference to sex on the sidewalk. THAT one is definite keeper. It supported the logic of that part of the Finding AND was real damn funny.


The Raisuli

Now, where is KCBrown to tell us all why this is really just a massive loss?
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:06 PM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What an unmititgated win this was! As IrishPirate has already said - SUCK IT ANTIS. This is the smackdown we've all been waiting for since Heller. All those *****footing lower courts, all those let downs and 1-steps-forward-and-3-steps-back, all those lying, conniving, cowardly anti-gun judges - and finally a panel steps up and stops the BS. How is it that only the 7th circuit has judges with integrity??

Good lord, I feel great. What a great day!
__________________
member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:10 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Earlier in the thread someone posted that Hawaii dismissed. But I see some evidence that plaintiff in the Hawaii case has filed supplemental authority citing Moore v. Madigan. So, any confirmation on the dismissal?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:17 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,658
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Yeah, knowing what we know I don't think the NRA will let that fly. They are going to establish state preemption of some sort whether it's just for concealed carry or gun laws in general. They have almost all the power now. As long as they have 51% of the votes in at least the senate or the house then they could just refuse to vote on any bill that doesn't include the right reforms and I think they might have that 51% that will support major pro-gun reforms.
I agree, and I would think there are plenty of legislators from outside the major cities who would want shall issue over no permit needed. I just hope the pro-gun side doesn't over play their cards trying to hold out for more than they can get, and in doing so allows Chicago to go back to their old tricks.

For their sake at least, I don't live there.

(on a side note, I just saw in my work e-mail the title "IT Alert: Illinois Office" and for some reason checked it in case it was relevant lol, nope just internal stuff haha)

Last edited by stix213; 12-11-2012 at 2:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:17 PM
todd2968's Avatar
todd2968 todd2968 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default Only chicago

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
I'd be suprised if Illinois didn't go the way of CA and have a CCW statute in name only for all intents and purposes.
As a resident of the state of Illinois (only stationed in Ca).

They can draft legislation all day but outside of Chicago sheriffs will grant CCW all day long. Back when they tried to make it a law the had the full support of most of the sheriffs outside of Chicago and even volunteered to hold trial CCW's in Peoria (central IL).

Rock On !!!!!
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
VFW LIFEMEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:21 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,522
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene

That's my take as well.

So, being that this is how things work, I have a question for all those gloating about how gunnies can now force the Ill. legislature to write a decent "Shall Issue" CCW law:

Why would you want to? No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:28 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: 4,172
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

We may not, but legislators will.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:28 PM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
That's my take as well.

So, being that this is how things work, I have a question for all those gloating about how gunnies can now force the Ill. legislature to write a decent "Shall Issue" CCW law:

Why would you want to? No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?


The Raisuli
It's all about what the Antis want to give us. FOID + virtual constitutional carry is now the default choice if they don't get a bill passed. We might be able to trade constitutional carry for permitted carry, but get rid of FOID cards, or enact pre-emption, or whatever else we want. At this point, if the Antis balk, all we have to do is remind them that if no bill is passed, we get universal permitless carry for FOID holders. It's all about what they're willing to do to avoid that, and we'll find out soon enough!
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:29 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
That's my take as well.

So, being that this is how things work, I have a question for all those gloating about how gunnies can now force the Ill. legislature to write a decent "Shall Issue" CCW law:

Why would you want to? No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?


The Raisuli
Because perhaps without the legislated protection of a CCW there would be things like a rash of "disturbing the peace" arrests by Chicago PD as retribution. Just a thought. Do you really trust them to respect the right when it's now just in a completely undefined, nebulous state?
__________________
"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
  #149  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:31 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,949
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
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.
That's NOT what their laws or voting record indicate.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:33 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Truckee Meadows USA
Posts: 4,624
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

This just arrived in my mailbox from NRL-ILA:

"The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case."

What was SAF's involvement?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:33 PM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?
This is politics. Everybody in the Il legislature has their own little chess game going, and guns are only one little piece of that. To the legislators, this ruling is a big pile of trading stock, and they are working up their letters to Santa right now.

What I'm saying is a legislator is going to get more of what *he* wants by horsetrading a little while assembling a bill.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:42 PM
Coded-Dude's Avatar
Coded-Dude Coded-Dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,709
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
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—
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
This just arrived in my mailbox from NRL-ILA:

"The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case."

What was SAF's involvement?
See the quote above.
__________________
x2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadbolt View Post
watching this state and country operate is like watching a water park burn down. doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
Team 6 showed up in choppers, it was so cash. Lit his house with red dots like it had a rash. Navy SEALs dashed inside his house, left their heads spinning...then flew off in the night screaming "Duh, WINNING!"
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:45 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
This just arrived in my mailbox from NRL-ILA:

"The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case."

What was SAF's involvement?
On 5/12/11, SAF filed and funded the case Moore v. Madigan http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/it...15.docket.html. On 5/13/11, NRA filed a similar case, Shepard v. Madigan. Both cases were addressed in today's opinion (at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moo...2012-12-11.pdf).

Alan Gura's oral argument at CA7: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moo...2012-06-08.mp3

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:46 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 888
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?
The Raisuli
No gunnie wants less than that, but Chicago will likely make their own carry laws if they aren't preempted by the state. Chicago could end up being almost may-issue, and a big chunk of the Illinois population is in Chicago. Illinois could have passed shall-issue long ago if they didn't care about Chicago.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:48 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default interesting, what if.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene
I don't see Illinois not trying to go en-banc, if for no other reason than to stall.

Let's say they see the writing on the wall and just figure it is a lost cause, isn't Judge Posner the Chief Justice of the 7th, and they don't appeal, now what?

What if our side did nothing for 181 days except say no unless the carry bill was really good, then the state would be in non compliance.

So, here is my question.

If the court didn't tell Illinois outright that their weapon's carry bans are now void, could someone file a injunction against their enforcement under the following terms.

Individuals who have any of the following can carry loaded openly or concealed.

1. A firearms owners ID card.
2. Valid CCW permit from any state.

Sensitive zones will be defined as the following.

Secure areas of airports
Jails, prisons, court houses,
Legislative bodies,
School grounds with exception of parking lots so that parents can pick up and drop of children. School employees can store personal arms in their cars.

Schools defined as K to 12, not universities or colleges.

Private businesses can make establishments no carry and they can ask people who are armed to leave. Refusal to leave then becomes tress pass.

Require that carriers notify police officers that they are armed if their is an encounter.
Allow police to verify with probable cause that a person is not a prohibited person..

Still allow enforcement of all gun laws related to criminals.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-11-2012, 2:56 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
I don't see Illinois not trying to go en-banc, if for no other reason than to stall.

Let's say they see the writing on the wall and just figure it is a lost cause, isn't Judge Posner the Chief Justice of the 7th, and they don't appeal, now what?

What if our side did nothing for 181 days except say no unless the carry bill was really good, then the state would be in non compliance.

So, here is my question.

If the court didn't tell Illinois outright that their weapon's carry bans are now void, could someone file a injunction against their enforcement under the following terms.

Individuals who have any of the following can carry loaded openly or concealed.

1. A firearms owners ID card.
2. Valid CCW permit from any state.

Sensitive zones will be defined as the following.

Secure areas of airports
Jails, prisons, court houses,
Legislative bodies,
School grounds with exception of parking lots so that parents can pick up and drop of children. School employees can store personal arms in their cars.

Schools defined as K to 12, not universities or colleges.

Private businesses can make establishments no carry and they can ask people who are armed to leave. Refusal to leave then becomes tress pass.

Require that carriers notify police officers that they are armed if their is an encounter.
Allow police to verify with probable cause that a person is not a prohibited person..

Still allow enforcement of all gun laws related to criminals.

Nicki
You forgot, "The mere carrying of a firearm by a permit holder in non-sensitive places (as defined by this bill) shall never be considered a crime, including that of disturbing the peace." Or something like that.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-11-2012, 3:07 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
I don't see Illinois not trying to go en-banc, if for no other reason than to stall.
I'm not sure that is something they would want to do. After all, the en banc court might not be as kind as was the current panel. . . It depends on how they see the rest of the court acting if they try to go en banc.

And since the current panel gave them the 180 days to fix their laws, the en banc court might figure that if they rule within 120 days that Illinois only gets another 60 days to fix their laws? This could be a very difficult thing for them.

Quote:
.
.
.
So, here is my question.

If the court didn't tell Illinois outright that their weapon's carry bans are now void.
.
.
.
I may not be on point on this one, but my brief response is that the court did tell the State of Illinois that their carry ban is void. But they get to act as if it is not void for another 180 days so that they will not be without a legal/regulatory schema in order to deal with the carry issue.

I'm probably not saying it right. . . But the law was found to be unconstitutional and thus has been struck down.

If you buy something on credit you owe the money immediately. But according to the terms you may not actually have to make a payment for several months and you may not have to finally make good on the full amount due for years. But you owe the money immediately.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-11-2012, 3:12 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
And since the current panel gave them the 180 days to fix their laws, the en banc court might figure that if they rule within 120 days that Illinois only gets another 60 days to fix their laws?
Does that mean ff they decide to go for en-banc, it means they are confident they can win at minimum an injunction on the 180 limit and/or some sort of guarantee of the clock being put on hold?
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-11-2012, 3:26 PM
Scott Connors's Avatar
Scott Connors Scott Connors is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 847
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So...someone explain to me how it is that Illinois gets the honest judges, when you consider the pool from which they're selected?
__________________
"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."--Spider Robinson.
"It is a ghastly but tenable proposition that the world is now ruled by the insane, whose increasing plurality will, in a few more generations, make probable the incarceration of all sane people born among them."--Clark Ashton Smith
"Every time a pro-terrorist Tranzi hangs, an angel gets his wings."--Tom Kratman
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-11-2012, 3:33 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

DeFacto constitutional carry if they dont agree on restrictions? Muahahaha brady is peeing their pants right now.
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 10:28 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.