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
  #321  
Old 12-13-2012, 8:39 AM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
If they had a bit of sense (I know that's asking a lot) the state would make it no more complicated than getting a drivers license. Show up with your proof of training like you do with insurance, they run an instant check using your drivers license, take your picture and you're on your way. Heck hand it off to the (yikes!) DMV because they already have your prints on file. The permanent LTC could look like a drivers license or just be added to drivers licenses/ID Cards the way a motorcycle endorsement is added. The infrastructure is already in place at the DMV and it would save a cash strapped state a ton of money.
This is what Missouri does, and it seems to work well for them.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 12-13-2012, 8:42 AM
Left Coast Conservative's Avatar
Left Coast Conservative Left Coast Conservative is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 276
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stingray4540 View Post
Never gonna happen. They still print hunting/fishing licenses on stupid unwieldy paper. Isn't CA the home of the silicon valley? The birthplace of technology? And we can't print F'ing credit card type licenses?! Hell, just print paper ones that are CC sized so we can laminate them.
I think they still use rice paper for the CCW licenses because so few are issued, and they are issued by so many different agencies, that the logistics of CC-like licenses would be too costly. State-issued licenses like drivers licenses and contractors licenses are done as CC-like cards. If CCW issuance goes to the DOJ, which I think is likely to happen as a result of shall-issue, then I would expect to see CC-like CCW licenses.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 12-13-2012, 9:32 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Honestly as long as the DROS system is up and running there is no reason (other than state and locally mandated bureaucracy) why 90% of permits can't be approved and temporary permits issued while you wait (10-15 minutes) with a drivers license like permit to follow in a couple of weeks. Basically swipe your drivers license and check the training complete box (like a handgun purchase) take a picture, and out pops the rice paper temp LTC.
For that matter since you're doing a NICS/DROS anyway why wouldn't you check a box to have the endorsement communicated?

Assuming all of this doesn't relegate the Handgun Safety Certificate to the unconstitutional bin (possibly unlikely given how "reasonable" training seems to be interpreted by not only this ruling but the judiciary in general), that seems a better target than the DMV. Except it becomes another valid state issued ID, right?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 12-13-2012, 9:57 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thx, Al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post

In the present case (Moore/Shepard), the State has until Dec. 26th to file for en banc. Christmas being a holiday, is excluded from the count. If Lisa Madigan does not file for en banc consideration, then the 90 day clock for filing a petition for cert continues, as it started at the same time.
Let's say Madigan does file within 14 days, how long does the AC have to reply and tell her whether they'll grant reconsideration/en banc? The longer they wait to give her a decision, the more it cuts into the 90 day window for filing w/SCOTUS....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
That clock runs out on March 11th (excluding Xmas and New Years), if I have counted correctly.
Did you factor in MLK's birthday (Jan 21), and President's Day (Feb 18)?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:30 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,247
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Allow me to further clarify a point of law that some are misconstruing. As it stands, the law in IL is not yet unconstitutional. The panel made the following order (emphasis added):

Quote:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.

This means that the cases go back to the District Courts, and the panel orders them to declare the law(s) unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction. But the panel then added a caveat to those orders:



So, at the end of this 180 day period, the District Courts will take up the cases and issue their individual declarations and permanent injunctions.

Then and only then, will the law become unconstitutional.
Um, no. That flies squarely in the face of Marbury v Madison. The Constitutionality, or lack thereof, of a law is not dependent upon when the court makes a decision -- it is an attribute of the law itself. A law is either Constitutional or it is not. That is an attribute that flows directly from the nature of the law itself and its interaction with the Constitution. The court is not making the law Unconstitutional through its decision, it is observing that it is so, and pointing it out to everyone.

The court does not have the power to make a law Constitutional or not, only to observe that it is or is not. In Moore, the court has told the world that it has observed that the law is Unconstitutional. It is not within the court's legitimate power to declare that the law in question has legal weight anyway, for no law which is void under the Constitution has legal weight, period. To say otherwise is to directly contradict Marbury v Madison, and that way lies great peril for the court system itself and for the republic.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 12-13-2012 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:58 AM
jar jar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Let's say Madigan does file within 14 days, how long does the AC have to reply and tell her whether they'll grant reconsideration/en banc? The longer they wait to give her a decision, the more it cuts into the 90 day window for filing w/SCOTUS....
If Madigan petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, the 90 day cert clock starts from the denial of rehearing or the entry of judgement from the rehearing if it's granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTUS Rule 13.3

The time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari runs from the date of entry of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, and not from the issuance date of the mandate (or its equivalent under local practice). But if a petition for rehearing is timely filed in the lower court by any party, or if the lower court appropriately entertains an untimely petition for rehearing or sua sponte considers rehearing, the time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari for all parties (whether or not they requested rehearing or joined in the petition for rehearing) runs from the date of the denial of rehearing or, if rehearing is granted, the subsequent entry of judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:11 AM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,415
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I would say that yes, the law is Unconstitutional from that point in time, and anyone who is subsequently convicted of the overturned law has legitimate grounds to have his conviction overturned on that basis.
The law wasn't always unconstitutional?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
In effect they are. Such things must, as always, ultimately yield to the constraints of the real world, but only to the degree absolutely necessary. It's not necessary for the court to publish the full opinion, complete with dissent, just to make it clear that the law in question is Unconstitutional. Simply stating so is sufficient. The details can come later.
If that was the case, it sure would make Gura's recent filling for Palmer much shorter:

"The 7th has reversed Moore. They haven't told us why yet, but I'm sure that they have a good reason..."




Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I appreciate what you're saying here, but the Constitution must reign supreme, or the republic which was built on it is nothing but a sham.
And I'm completely sympathetic to the point that you are making ( honestly! ), but pragmatics seem to indicate that your rights are completely dependent upon the legal and political machinery, and thus can vary over time and differ from location to location within the US.

Take the decision here: apparently folks in Illinois have the right to bear arms outside of the home. Shouldn't I, here in California, have that right as well? Right now? And yet, that's not how the system works.

: shrug :

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:53 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,247
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
The law wasn't always unconstitutional?
No, the law was always Unconstitutional, but it wasn't until the decision that the courts realized this.

The "from that point of time" I was referring to was in response to your question about "between the exact moment the court makes an internal decision and the date of publish". It was intended to make it clear that the Unconstitutionality of the law did not start at point of publish, but prior to it. Apologies for the confusion.


Quote:
If that was the case, it sure would make Gura's recent filling for Palmer much shorter:

"The 7th has reversed Moore. They haven't told us why yet, but I'm sure that they have a good reason..."

Heh. The declaration that a law is Unconstitutional does not relieve the court of the burden of saying why it is Unconstitutional. The only purpose of separating the two is to minimize the amount of time the law is seen by the authorities as having any sort of legitimate power.


Quote:
And I'm completely sympathetic to the point that you are making ( honestly! ), but pragmatics seem to indicate that your rights are completely dependent upon the legal and political machinery, and thus can vary over time and differ from location to location within the US.
That is true as far as it goes, but that is not an argument for making it easier for the state to infringe upon the rights of the citizenry!


Quote:
Take the decision here: apparently folks in Illinois have the right to bear arms outside of the home. Shouldn't I, here in California, have that right as well? Right now? And yet, that's not how the system works.
That's because what has been recognized is that the specific law in question is Unconstitutional. Such recognition has not extended to any other law (yet). Since the law in question doesn't actually govern us here in California, its lack of Constitutionality does not affect us except with respect to the reasoning used to determine its lack of Constitutionality.

Furthermore, the 7th Circuit has no jurisdiction over California, so its decisions are "persuasive" but not binding. We will get a different decision from the 9th Circuit (which issues decisions that are binding on California) on the California law, and I fully expect the 9th Circuit to refuse to import the reasoning used in Moore, unless that reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court (and the 9th Circuit might refuse to apply it even then, at least the first time around. That's less likely, but still possible). Only time will tell.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 12-13-2012, 1:34 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just wanted to point this is going to be really test of what the NRA can do. They don't have to play the game to get CCW for people. They are able to dictate terms, not sure if the NRA has had this opportunity. If they only pass CCW reform this will be massive failure on there part. I would hope most of the laws, FOID CCW, state preemption all come to pass. Don't screw it up NRA
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 12-13-2012, 1:58 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman21 View Post
Just wanted to point this is going to be really test of what the NRA can do. They don't have to play the game to get CCW for people. They are able to dictate terms, not sure if the NRA has had this opportunity. If they only pass CCW reform this will be massive failure on there part. I would hope most of the laws, FOID CCW, state preemption all come to pass. Don't screw it up NRA
The decision said nothing at all about all that stuff. By what rationale are people suggesting the Illinois Legislature is now empowered to seek sweeping gun rights reform?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:01 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
It looks like the proposed bill is less than ideal, especially where prohibited locations are concerned.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=656175

The “pro-gun majority” in the legislature may not be so pro-gun after all.


Wrong. That bill was pre-decision. The bill will be entirely rewritten in January, with almost no compromising.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:06 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,868
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Wrong. That bill was pre-decision. The bill will be entirely rewritten in January, with almost no compromising.

CGN needs a LIKE smiley.....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:08 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
By what rationale are people suggesting the Illinois Legislature is now empowered to seek sweeping gun rights reform?
I thought that obvious. If they do nothing, their entire carry ban gets struck down and both open and concealed carry are legal. Given that, pro-gun legislators in IL have big leverage to force the anti-gun legislators in line, because there's nothing said anti-gun legislators hate more than people carrying guns without their permission.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:13 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
I thought that obvious. If they do nothing, their entire carry ban gets struck down and both open and concealed carry are legal. Given that, pro-gun legislators in IL have big leverage to force the anti-gun legislators in line, because there's nothing said anti-gun legislators hate more than people carrying guns without their permission.
The only "leverage" they have is a court decision declaring the current regime unconstitutional. There are fairly modest and precise reforms that can be enacted to bring Illinois into compliance with the decision.

There is a pretty big difference between doing nothing and sweeping away all gun controls.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:21 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The only "leverage" they have is a court decision declaring the current regime unconstitutional. There are fairly modest and precise reforms that can be enacted to bring Illinois into compliance with the decision.
True, but why should the pro-gun majority accede to them?
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:29 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Folks here need to understand the Illinois legislative situation. We have a majority who are strongly pro right to carry there.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:31 PM
ebourqui ebourqui is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
There is a pretty big difference between doing nothing and sweeping away all gun controls.
Mitch, I thought the same thing, but from what I have read in the rest of this thread, the Illinois legislature is fairly pro-gun, in both houses. From what I understand, they almost got a shall-issue bill through, but were 2-3 votes shy of overturning the governor's veto.

So, how it stands now, the pro-gun legislature can say to the antis: "Take our version of the bill, or we'll stall for 181 days, and the entire state will be de-facto constitutional carry, as there will no longer be any state law concerning the carry of concealed weapons".

It appears a pro-gun majority in Illinois is in the driver's seat, as far as writing the concealed carry law goes.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:36 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebourqui View Post
So, how it stands now, the pro-gun legislature can say to the antis: "Take our version of the bill, or we'll stall for 181 days, and the entire state will be de-facto constitutional carry, as there will no longer be any state law concerning the carry of concealed weapons".
Wouldn't open carry be legal as well, since the law bans both open and concealed carry? The threat of that would surely scare the antis into compliance.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:50 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebourqui View Post
So, how it stands now, the pro-gun legislature can say to the antis: "Take our version of the bill, or we'll stall for 181 days, and the entire state will be de-facto constitutional carry, as there will no longer be any state law concerning the carry of concealed weapons".
Think about what you are suggesting. You are saying that a supermajority of Illinois legislators are willing to go back to their districts and point with pride at the fact that anyone in the state can legally carry a concealed weapon, no permit required, because they didn't get the sweeping gun rights measures they wanted from the rump of the Legislature. You think their constituents will be happy about that?

Honestly, NO ONE IN AMERICA, outside a hard core of passionate advocates, cares that much about gun rights, for or against. Certainly hardly any elected officials anywhere care enough to put their reelections on the line. I have yet to see a politician of national stature stand up and declare, unequivocally, that assault weapon bans (for example) make no sense and should be repealed, let alone the supermajority of any state legislature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebourqui View Post
It appears a pro-gun majority in Illinois is in the driver's seat, as far as writing the concealed carry law goes.
Yes, and that's what Illinois will probably get, a new concealed carry law.

Anyway, I hate making predictions, and I'm not going to make a prediction here. I was curious about the rationale behind this suggestion that Illinois was now poised, because of a narrow CA court decision, to enact sweeping gun law reforms. I now recognize the reasoning, but I still don't buy it. We'll see what happens.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:55 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
Think about what you are suggesting. You are saying that a supermajority of Illinois legislators are willing to go back to their districts and point with pride at the fact that anyone in the state can legally carry a concealed weapon, no permit required, because they didn't get the sweeping gun rights measures they wanted from the rump of the Legislature. You think their constituents will be happy about that?

Honestly, NO ONE IN AMERICA, outside a hard core of passionate advocates, cares that much about gun rights, for or against. Certainly hardly any elected officials anywhere care enough to put their reelections on the line. I have yet to see a politician of national stature stand up and declare, unequivocally, that assault weapon bans (for example) make no sense and should be repealed, let alone the supermajority of any state legislature.



Yes, and that's what Illinois will probably get, a new concealed carry law.

Anyway, I hate making predictions, and I'm not going to make a prediction here. I was curious about the rationale behind this suggestion that Illinois was now poised, because of a narrow CA court decision, to enact sweeping gun law reforms. I now recognize the reasoning, but I still don't buy it. We'll see what happens.
Define "sweeping reform".
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 12-13-2012, 2:59 PM
ebourqui ebourqui is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That's an interesting point, Mitch, that having to go back to the constituency with "I did nothing to stop constitutional carry" is a leverage point for the antis. My initial reaction (and post to this thread) was

Quote:
My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."
but those "in the know" (Gene, Gray, Brandon, etc.) believe the legislature will have the guts to write a shall-issue bill. Like you, I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm also cautiously optimistic.

ETA: Thought about it a bit more, and it will never be the legislature taking the blame for constitutional carry, it would be the governor. The legislature crafts a shall-issue bill, submits it to the governor, who vetoes it. It's then on the governor, not the legislature, that constitutional carry is now the law of the land (as far as Illinois is concerned).

Last edited by ebourqui; 12-13-2012 at 3:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 12-13-2012, 3:01 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: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Wrong. That bill was pre-decision.…
Retracted … based on Librarian’s retraction.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 12-13-2012, 3:10 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
Think about what you are suggesting. You are saying that a supermajority of Illinois legislators are willing to go back to their districts and point with pride at the fact that anyone in the state can legally carry a concealed weapon, no permit required, because they didn't get the sweeping gun rights measures they wanted from the rump of the Legislature. You think their constituents will be happy about that?
Sorry, I keep looking for words in the order saying anything about implementing "concealed carry". Did I miss something?

I don't mean to be a complete wiseass, but understand that 'bear' means just that. The Constitution does not specify a manner of carry. The current Supreme Court has apparently viewed this as a requirement some form of carry be allowed...but never said which one folks can choose.

Posner appears to have read something in Heller the way some here did: that open carry was the normal, and that concealed carry was an option. I guess history does matter. In either case, absent a law or a stay, after the deadline the possession and carry of a firearm in Illinois is not prosecutable. That won't stop them getting you for other reasons (peace, etc.), but realistically they are Constitutional Carry (kinda, sorta).

As for credit/blame...it looks like the legislature is going to send the governor a shall-issue bill. If he vetoes that bill, he gets credit for no-permit carry. That's the way the game works - the last one holding he potato gets his fingers burnt.

All this said, I think we're ahead of ourselves. If Madigan gets her en banc review, the pro-gun people in the legislature will have a weaker hand to play. That is the next big step.
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 12-13-2012, 3:15 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Define "sweeping reform".
Here's an example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1JimMarch View Post
Here's how it will go...gunnies to grabbers:

"You guys want at least training in place before 180 days are up? Fine. Please us! We want no more FOID. We want Chicago permanently out of the gun control biz (strong preemption). We want unlimited cutlery carry to go with our CCWs. We want full reciprocity with anything that even smells like another CCW permit. We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us. We want you all to do the Funky Chicken Dance in Daley Plaza. You think we're kidding? You're going to have to give us a LOT before we'll concede to training requirements and costs over $10. Because all we have to do is sit here, twiddle our thumbs and fart in your general direction and in 180 days we get constitutional carry and one hell of a party in downtown Chi-town baby. Leave your gangbanger friends behind if you know what's good for 'em."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 12-13-2012, 3:34 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
Sorry, I keep looking for words in the order saying anything about implementing "concealed carry". Did I miss something?
The court said that bearing a weapon outside the home is a fundamental right. The law being challenged will be stricken in 180 days. If the legislature doesn't pass a law that respects the courts decision by the end of that 180 days what happens? There is no longer any law on the books preventing one from carrying a weapon concealed in public and there is no legal requirement for training, permit etc. this is what Mitch was referring to.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 12-13-2012, 3:44 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,171
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Here's my prediction. FOID isn't going anywhere. We will get stand your ground, state preemption, and shall issue with not many hoops to jump through and mosy of the debate will be on somethinglike college campus carry. Even though we have virtually all the control now we wwon't get everything we want because some would rather have constitutional carry than have FOID go away.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:14 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
Here's an example:
Rather extreme.
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:17 PM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Here's my prediction. FOID isn't going anywhere. We will get stand your ground, state preemption, and shall issue with not many hoops to jump through and mosy of the debate will be on somethinglike college campus carry. Even though we have virtually all the control now we wwon't get everything we want because some would rather have constitutional carry than have FOID go away.
It all depends on who those "some" are. Let's do a little math. Earlier in this thread, is says that the old carry bill had a veto-proof majority in one house, and was only a couple of votes shy in the other. I find it hard to believe that there isn't at least one powerful committe chair somewhere that hates FOID. If you don't want his committee to become a paper-shredder for any legislation of any size that crosses his desk, you'll decide maybe FOID isn't worth it.

My point being, "You can't tell the players without a program." and there is a whole lot of inside baseball that is going to happen that we here in Cal have no visibility into. Only prowling the halls the the Illinois statehouse will get a good line-item by line-item vote count.. This is going to be a very personality-driven process. Everything else is throwing darts in the dark.

My prediction: Find out what the 8 or so most power committee chairs most want -- that is what the bill will look like.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:18 PM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,564
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Rather extreme.
That's what I thought.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:23 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
That's what I thought.
I think we need to understand that keeping the law as is with 180 days from from now, as legal is an option.
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:42 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I think we need to understand that keeping the law as is with 180 days from from now, as legal is an option.
I don't follow.
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:49 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The court said that bearing a weapon outside the home is a fundamental right. The law being challenged will be stricken in 180 days. If the legislature doesn't pass a law that respects the courts decision by the end of that 180 days what happens? There is no longer any law on the books preventing one from carrying a weapon concealed in public and there is no legal requirement for training, permit etc. this is what Mitch was referring to.
In the event this thing actually ran to deadline with no <insert fun stuff here> happening, then my point was Illinois law has no choice as to manner of carry, other than "none".

This is not a matter of "concealed carry". It would conceivably include open carry. For all.

I hate to pick nits, especially considering I am not a big OC proponent for urban areas. But a can of worms opens on this theoretical "Day 181". Open Carry could conceivably end up costing votes for permissive Shall-Issue in the long run. When lawmakers from Chicago's exoburbs start fielding calls about all the gun nuts thinking it is wild west time, they will fall off the fence in a direction we don't like.

I think OC makes sense in a number of cases. I got disabled family for whom OC is the only practical carry method. But I also worry about "activists" strutting their gear in busy areas in a state where literally the day before it was illegal to have a gun in the hallway outside your apartment, or even in the garage of your own home. Social change cannot be that fast, and IL people will still be subject to laws of the legislature. Given enough calls, they will do what every legislature does: make the problem go away.
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:55 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
In the event this thing actually ran to deadline with no <insert fun stuff here> happening, then my point was Illinois law has no choice as to manner of carry, other than "none".

This is not a matter of "concealed carry". It would conceivably include open carry. For all.

I hate to pick nits, especially considering I am not a big OC proponent for urban areas. But a can of worms opens on this theoretical "Day 181". Open Carry could conceivably end up costing votes for permissive Shall-Issue in the long run. When lawmakers from Chicago's exoburbs start fielding calls about all the gun nuts thinking it is wild west time, they will fall off the fence in a direction we don't like.

I think OC makes sense in a number of cases. I got disabled family for whom OC is the only practical carry method. But I also worry about "activists" strutting their gear in busy areas in a state where literally the day before it was illegal to have a gun in the hallway outside your apartment, or even in the garage of your own home. Social change cannot be that fast, and IL people will still be subject to laws of the legislature. Given enough calls, they will do what every legislature does: make the problem go away.
Illinois is not California or Maryland. We can hold.
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 12-13-2012, 4:59 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wasn't aware that the statute in Question covered both open and concealed carry. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since all forms of carry are prohibited.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 12-13-2012, 5:12 PM
Patrick-2 Patrick-2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 600
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I wasn't aware that the statute in Question covered both open and concealed carry. I guess I shouldn't be surprised since all forms of carry are prohibited.
Remember that the Constitution does not permit carry. It prevents the government from denying the right. You do not require a law to carry...the government must pass laws against carry. Subtle twist with a sizable impact.

The Supreme Court has (apparently) suggested that historical understanding was that one form of carry (open) was acceptable, while another (concealed) was not. They appear to have read this history to say that a state may choose a manner of carry, but not extinguish all forms of it. At least, that is what our team is arguing. So absent a law specifying a manner of carry, there is nothing wrong with either.

Maryland is in the same boat. We don't have a manner of choice specified.

Quote:
Illinois is not California or Maryland. We can hold.
I am not so worried about Maryland. Outside of the central corridor, guns are pretty common and not despised. I got Dem lawmakers who like to shoot with me.

Didn't mean to speak to Illinois social policy as any type of expert. I made some assumptions about the state, but admit that my experience is mostly with family in the heart of Chicago.

But even in Maryland, I advise our members not to poke the beast. Carry is for defense, not for activism. If OC makes sense for them, then do it. But don't do it just to prove they can. If you poke enough, anything can happen.
__________________
------
Some Guy In Maryland

Last edited by Patrick-2; 12-13-2012 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 12-13-2012, 5:23 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Sweeping reform"? To remove the FOID and get state preemption? We have that here. Some people think we need to play defense, so this not one of the cases.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 12-13-2012, 5:32 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman21 View Post
"Sweeping reform"? To remove the FOID and get state preemption? We have that here. Some people think we need to play defense, so this not one of the cases.
State preemption is a definite. Removing FOID is not in the cards.
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 12-13-2012, 5:36 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Why?

Delaying and creating extra hurdles is what prevents many from getting a firearm regardless of whether they plan to keep or carry. It is one reason why more people who are not gun nuts don't get a firearm
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 12-13-2012, 6:13 PM
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quoting Gray:

Quote:
I think we need to understand that keeping the law as is with 180 days from from now, as legal is an option.
Gray, with all due respect, that sentence needs to be taken out back and shot to put it out of it's fractured misery.

WTF are you trying to say here?

Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 12-13-2012, 6:21 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick-2 View Post
Remember that the Constitution does not permit carry. It prevents the government from denying the right. You do not require a law to carry...the government must pass laws against carry. Subtle twist with a sizable impact.

The Supreme Court has (apparently) suggested that historical understanding was that one form of carry (open) was acceptable, while another (concealed) was not. They appear to have read this history to say that a state may choose a manner of carry, but not extinguish all forms of it. At least, that is what our team is arguing. So absent a law specifying a manner of carry, there is nothing wrong with either.
I understand the issue, I was just not aware that the statute challenged covered both open and concealed carry. In CA we have separate statutes covering each.
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 5:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.