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
  #721  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:08 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I’m a recent convert … to the open carry cause but now I see it as the direction SCOTUS wants us to go.
The Supreme Court is never going to give us unrestricted open carry. Law-and-order types like Antonin Scalia won’t abide that sort of thing. That’s why Alan Gura went the licensing route. That seemed clear enough.

Even if the court did give us unlicensed open carry, we would then fall right into the school-zone trap—transparent raincoats and all. Another four to six years would roll by as we challenged that restriction, hoping to get it thrown out by a Supreme Court arranged by President Rodham-Clinton. Fun prospect.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:13 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,448
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Funny how the Chicago Trib. gets the law for May Issue exactly backwards:

One key part of the Illinois debate is known as the "may/shall" issue. Gun rights advocates want it clear that permits shall be issued to anyone who fits within the letter of the law. But gun control lawmakers think it is better to have a "may issue" standard to give authorities discretion when there is a legitimate reason to prevent somebody from having a gun.

Wrong.

1) May Issue does not give authorities authority "to prevent someone from having a gun," but rather, to prevent a legal gun owner from legally carrying it in public (concealed and/or openly, depending upon the law).

2) In May Issue authorities always have the discretion to deny someone a carry permit. Not getting the permit is the default standard. It is up to the applicant to prove to the issuing authorities' satisfaction that they have an actual need to carry a handgun before the permit is issued. The authorities do not need to justify a denial other than to say the applicant's Good Cause insufficient for getting a permit.
__________________
"Gun-free zones" are "safe spaces" for killers. -- Milo

"If you're a Muslim, you slaughter Infidels: it's what you do."

Moderate Muslims will hold you down so the Radicals can cut your head off.

195+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:17 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Funny how the Chicago Trib. gets the law for May Issue exactly backwards:

One key part of the Illinois debate is known as the "may/shall" issue. Gun rights advocates want it clear that permits shall be issued to anyone who fits within the letter of the law. But gun control lawmakers think it is better to have a "may issue" standard to give authorities discretion when there is a legitimate reason to prevent somebody from having a gun.

Wrong.

1) May Issue does not give authorities authority "to prevent someone from having a gun," but rather, to prevent a legal gun owner from legally carrying it in public (concealed and/or openly, depending upon the law).

2) In May Issue authorities always have the discretion to deny someone a carry permit. Not getting the permit is the default standard. It is up to the applicant to prove to the issuing authorities' satisfaction that they have an actual need to carry a handgun before the permit is issued. The authorities do not need to justify a denial other than to say the applicant's Good Cause insufficient for getting a permit.
Stop quoting the Chicago Tribune.

North Korea State News has more credibility then that waste of space by the Chicago River.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:23 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,282
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
This is true.....IF the SCOTUS actually considers gun regulation to be "flouting" their intentions.

Based on recent history, I think the High Court supports any regulation which doesnt physicallý result in the denial of a singular firearm to a law abiding individual.As far as they're concerned if a plaintiff can keep a 12 gauge single shot in the house,theyre exercising the 2nd Amendment.

Naturally on the street this means Heller is all but meaningless,as its only a matter of time before some nitwit rules a field stripped gun locked up in a safe is "exercising your rights".
Important to realize that the courts do not understand time as you and I do.

So far as I am concerned, a denial of our civil liberties for one minute is intolerable.

So far as the courts are concerned, a delay of years is evidence of the courts working at breakneck speed.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:29 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I think what frustrates all of us is the amount of game playing that goes on in the judicial branch and the fiddling going on while the commissars in Sacramento continue to tighten their stranglehold on our rights.…
Indeed. We’ve played our part politely … but we were rewarded with a legalistic sucker punch. That’s bound to make anyone angry, so I will fly the caution flag until we’re out of danger.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:29 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VAReact View Post
Interesting take...makes some sense. Mulay ElRaisuli has been on to this for awhile, it seems.

Thank you! Having someone recognize what I've been saying for years is actually quite gratifying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The open carry movement including Mulay El Raisuli have been on this for years but many in the movement went at it wrong. Many open carriers sported arms in public in the hope that scaring the crap out of soccer moms would get them to support changing the law to allow loaded open carry. Needless to say it backfired. Where they (and we) missed the boat was that the way to change the law was to challenge the law banning loaded open carry in court.

Actually, the idea was to show the soccer moms that guns are NOT all that scary. That we, their neighbors, have guns, carry guns in their presence & that nothing bad happened as a result of this. By & large, this was the result that I personally saw on my OC expeditions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I've always believed that concealed carry was the preferred goal but I'm starting to think that perhaps we've been barking up the wrong tree with concealed. We had to try but it's become very clear that the Supreme Court is not going to take a concealed carry license case. The plan had been to ask for licensed concealed and settle for licensed or unlicensed open carry and use that to motivate states to allow licensed concealed carry. It's a plan that keeps getting shot down because SCOTUS is not going to touch concealed carry.

SCOTUS made it clear in Heller that "bear" is a fundamental right but that concealed carry is not and we've wasted years on an approach that they told us in Heller would go nowhere. So perhaps it's finally time listen to what they told us and shift gears in the direction that they told us to pursue and go directly after unlicensed loaded open carry by suing to get the laws banning open carry thrown out. If we get unlicensed loaded open carry affirmed as the right then the only way that that the state can ban open carry is by making unlicensed concealed carry the legally required method of exercising the right to unlicensed carry. I think we're foolish if we don't start moving in that direction right now before a Gorsky like lawyer screws that up for us at the district and 9th Circus level.

I've spent the last couple of years urging that we do exactly as you suggest now. For the exact same reason you state here. Welcome to the Dark Side!


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Thank you that was educational. It also helps with my argument that licensing general open carry is prior restraint. I'm a recent convert (today) to the open carry cause but now I see it as the direction SCOTUS wants us to go.

FWIW there is an open carry suit moving forward in Los Angles, but I have no idea how competent the attorney is.

This is NOT the guy we want to carry the ball for us. This should be done, but we need to find a competent lawyer quick before Mr Nichols screws things up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
You forgot one other avenue to attacking open carry prohibitions: Maryland's single permit for carry, be it concealed or open, the subject of Woollard.

Only IF going for unlicensed LOC is part of the attack plan. It hasn't been so far.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Regarding open carry, had we attacked prohibitions there, our cases would have been dismissed for lack of standing where licenses were otherwise available—and Illinois was the only no-carry state. The only other approach is via a criminal case, but the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that it doesn’t want any of those.

I disagree. We took the losses in those cases as a sign that it was the criminal aspect that bothered the courts. They didn't actually say that though, did they? I'm of the opinion that it was the "concealed" aspect that bothered them. So, maybe it's time to pick a 'clean' criminal defendant & represent him? Since time is short (the Heller-5 really aren't getting any younger), maybe find somebody 'clean' that's already in the pipeline? Hell, since time is short maybe we should be happy if we can find someone that we can live with as a defendant?


Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
That would effectively force the anti-gun states to implement shall-issue concealed carry, because open carry would be anathema to them. No way SCOTUS goes that far. They're AOK, so far as I can tell, with no-carry may-issue licensing regimes, and they'll not want to rock the boat as you suggest.

I disagree. The 19th 'carry cases' (Nunn, etc) weren't mentioned in Heller just for fun. I think that they were mentioned because they were hinting rather strongly that unlicensed LOC is what they had/have in mind for the "and bear" part of the Right.

And this would be consistent. After all, you don't need a permit to exercise any other Constitutional Right, do you? Yes, you do need a permit for a parade (as one example), but (as I've pointed out before), the permit is to allow you to disrupt traffic, NOT to express your POV.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Yep, you are being too optimistic-though its not your fault.

If nothing happens before June the anti's win. How?

Because Illinois does not have state pre-emption of firearms on its laws
. Each city and county has the authority to set its own enforceable firearms law as long as it doesn't conflict with the Unlawful Use of a Weapon statute-the law which the 7th ruled as unenforceable.

As such, when June rolls around every anti-gun county, city, and village can ban concealed carry as they see fit-and every single law would be enforceable on pain of jail. We naturally don't have the resources to drag every single village and municipality into court.

So, if nothing happens-the anti's still get to deny carry, just on a city by city basis. Shall issue ain't gonna happen, because Madigan and the Chicago Machine would rather commit ritual suicide. What's likely to emerge from the Legislature at the last minute is some bastardized concealed carry law which only allows someone to carry a 7 shot pistol once every Thursday between the spring and summer equinox-barring local city and state restrictions.

I disagree. It is legally & Constitutionally inconsistent to say that a state may not infringe upon a Right, but that a city may. The 7th Circuit would slap that sort of thing down fairly quickly, I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post

I don't think it is as bad as all that. The Sullivan Act was 100 years ago and was never reviewed by this court.

Governor Quinn can blame whomever he wants. Illinois is in a H*** of a pickle, and one entirely of their own making.

As a result of the 7th's ruling, they had three viable options. The first one went out the window when their request for en-banc was denied. Strike #1

The pro-gun legislature is certain to send him a shall issue bill, which he will be compelled to veto both for political reasons and because he simply hates guns. Strike #2

The last option is to apply for cert., which ultimately, I think they will do. It's simply the least painful option available to them.

There is of course the "nuclear option", whereby they do nothing and chose to ignore the 7th altogether. I truly wish they would do this, but they have to know it's a loser position. If they do nothing, the 7th will vacate the stay and their law. Illinois becomes constitutional carry, no permit required.

If Illinois arrests and attempts to prosecute it's citizens, they are forcing the 7th and perhaps SCOTUS to act, and in a way that would only benefit us. SCOTUS would never allow a state governor and AG to ignore a clear ruling from their District Court. That would put our whole legal system at jeopardy.

I predict that once again, we will be thanking the Chicago political machine and the anti-gun movement for advancing gun rights, much as they did with McDonald.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but the ruling from the 7th was HUGE for us and eventually has to be addressed.

And this is why I think that.


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:34 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Raisuli

-The trouble isn't the legality, but the logistics. We cannot simultaneously drag every Illinois anti-gun city and municipality into court, which is what would be needed because every single town would have a slightly different ordinance regarding carry, or the restrictions thereof. If a statewide law were the problem-as it was with the Unlawful Use of a Weapon rule that banned carry-it would be "relatively" painless to strike down. Unfortunately with thousands of towns writing their own gun laws , a verdict against one won't strike down the laws of its neighbors.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:34 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

The Supreme Court is never going to mandate unlicensed open carry. See my post above.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:39 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
The Supreme Court is never going to give us unrestricted open carry. Law-and-order types like Antonin Scalia won’t abide that sort of thing. That’s why Alan Gura went the licensing route. That seemed clear enough.

Even if the court did give us unlicensed open carry, we would then fall right into the school-zone trap—transparent raincoats and all. Another four to six years would roll by as we challenged that restriction, hoping to get it thrown out by a Supreme Court arranged by President Rodham-Clinton. Fun prospect.

I dispute that it was really all that "clear." I thought/think that the reference to Nunn, etc was the part that was clear. Time seems to prove me right.

It wouldn't take all that long to strike down the school-zone ban. At present, even though its horribly weak (legally & Constitutionally speaking), it survives because we have NOTHING to attack it with. It just doesn't affect an activity that's Constitutionally protected. Once LOC becomes the Minimal Constitutional Standard nationwide though, things change. Then we will have a tool to attack it. No PRK judge will strike it down, but a Federal judge will.


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:40 AM
Chicago's Avatar
Chicago Chicago is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
So, does cert. having been denied in Kachalsky make it more likely or less that Madigan will ask for cert. in Shepard-Moore?
The Supreme Court has signaled the Illinois legislature that, while a de jure ban on carry (no issue) is intolerable, a de facto ban (may issue) is not. So we will get what New York has and Ms. Madigan will, contentedly, move on to other things.
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 04-16-2013, 8:43 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Raisuli

-The trouble isn't the legality, but the logistics. We cannot simultaneously drag every Illinois anti-gun city and municipality into court, which is what would be needed because every single town would have a slightly different ordinance regarding carry, or the restrictions thereof. If a statewide law were the problem-as it was with the Unlawful Use of a Weapon rule that banned carry-it would be "relatively" painless to strike down. Unfortunately with thousands of towns writing their own gun laws , a verdict against one won't strike down the laws of its neighbors.

The logistics are the same as they were with "separate but equal" drinking fountains & such. It wasn't necessary to sue each & every little city & town to get them gone. The same approach that was used for that Civil Rights fight should be the model for this Civil Rights fight. Especially since the 7th Circuit has spoken so clearly.


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 04-16-2013, 9:34 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Thank you! Having someone recognize what I've been saying for years is actually quite gratifying.

Actually, the idea was to show the soccer moms that guns are NOT all that scary. That we, their neighbors, have guns, carry guns in their presence & that nothing bad happened as a result of this. By & large, this was the result that I personally saw on my OC expeditions.
But as everyone told you it would it had the opposite effect.

Quote:
This is NOT the guy we want to carry the ball for us. This should be done, but we need to find a competent lawyer quick before Mr Nichols screws things up.
I agree which is why I posted the case. We need to find a clean non-criminal case where someone is turned down for a CCW and we sue for unlicensed open carry. There is just as good of a chance, perhaps better, that SCOTUS will agree that unlicensed open carry is the right. As for gun free school zones they don't won't hold up to a challenge once we get unlicensed open carry. I think we really need to get on this one before someone else loses it for us. Unfortunately I think there is stubborn resistance to asking for unlicensed open carry or any form of open carry.

Quote:
I disagree. The 19th 'carry cases' (Nunn, etc) weren't mentioned in Heller just for fun. I think that they were mentioned because they were hinting rather strongly that unlicensed LOC is what they had/have in mind for the "and bear" part of the Right.
I think you're right. I think the court's use of historical analysis points to unlicensed open carry because that was the historical standard and I think they will keep rejecting "concealed" cases until we wake up and go after what they told us to go after.

Quote:
And this would be consistent. After all, you don't need a permit to exercise any other Constitutional Right, do you? Yes, you do need a permit for a parade (as one example), but (as I've pointed out before), the permit is to allow you to disrupt traffic, NOT to express your POV.
Exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
The Supreme Court is never going to mandate unlicensed open carry. See my post above.
They just might simply because unlicensed open carry was the way it was done at the time the constitution was written. I think we're foolish if we don't give it a try before some else does and screws it up for us. You can always ask for unlicensed settle for licensed but it's nuts to keep after what the court told us they won't give us while rejecting what they told us is the right.

Quote:
It wouldn't take all that long to strike down the school-zone ban. At present, even though its horribly weak (legally & Constitutionally speaking), it survives because we have NOTHING to attack it with. It just doesn't affect an activity that's Constitutionally protected. Once LOC becomes the Minimal Constitutional Standard nationwide though, things change. Then we will have a tool to attack it. No PRK judge will strike it down, but a Federal judge will.
Exactly.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 04-16-2013, 9:48 AM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Given that I'm 6 years older than you, and have some experience & familial knowledge going back a lot further than that, I would like to educate you.

The 1950's featured a majority of Americans who were OK with the idea of a total ban on civilian handgun possession. America then writhed and pushed for restrictive gun control with the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Your mother was still either pregnant with you or a few months before when the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. was being debated. Take a hard look at what FOPA changed the reality between 1968 and 1986. In the 1970's, we were much worse off now than anytime recently. All of the anti-gun organizations formed up at that point. National Council to Control Handguns (later HCI & later Brady), National Council to Ban Handguns (later CSGV), among other organization. At it's apex, tens of million of people who turned on guns & their owners because John Lennon was murdered by a man using a handgun.

We were under much more threat in the 1970's. We almost had a California roster system on a nationwide basis (Senator McClure helped kill that).

Before 1987, only 8 states had right to carry. By the time you were 21 years of age, the only states that did not have carry for you that later did was Wisconsin & Iowa. You are relatively spoiled versus what my parents had to deal with....
Well said. Few people here seem to realize just how quickly things can change, both in politically left and politically right directions. Until the late 1980's, California had less gun control than Texas. Who would've guessed the situation today would be reversed.

SCOTUS most likely wants a better case, and is waiting to see how the current crop of cases plays out in the various circuits. They still have plenty of time to grant cert for a decision by June of 2014. And they may very well combine some of the remaining cases concerning both may-issue and no-issue.
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 04-16-2013, 10:07 AM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,011
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Can Gura apply to SCOTUS now for woollard?
or is he blocked now waiting for the circuit court to deal with en-banc request?
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 04-16-2013, 10:11 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,502
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
The Supreme Court is never going to mandate unlicensed open carry. See my post above.
The Supreme Court appears to be looking for a case where they can only say that "a form of loaded, functional carry must be available."

The type of carry, restrictions, conditions, sensitive places, etc., will have to be resolved later, after we have additional Circuit rulings. The pass in Kachalsky indicates that they are not even ready to discuss restrictions (may-issue), let alone address the open vs. concealed carry puzzle.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 04-16-2013, 10:37 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The Supreme Court appears to be looking for a case where they can only say that "a form of loaded, functional carry must be available."

The type of carry, restrictions, conditions, sensitive places, etc., will have to be resolved later, after we have additional Circuit rulings. The pass in Kachalsky indicates that they are not even ready to discuss restrictions (may-issue), let alone address the open vs. concealed carry puzzle.
That may be, but we're crazy not to get an open carry case moving up through the system before someone with less competence poisons that well with a bad case or poor arguments.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 04-16-2013, 11:53 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The Supreme Court appears to be looking for a case where they can only say that "a form of loaded, functional carry must be available."

The type of carry, restrictions, conditions, sensitive places, etc., will have to be resolved later, after we have additional Circuit rulings. The pass in Kachalsky indicates that they are not even ready to discuss restrictions (may-issue), let alone address the open vs. concealed carry puzzle.
I agree completely with this. The Roberts court is conservative in that they like simple, narrow rulings and let lower courts figure out the details.

Moore offers exactly that. Personally, I think it highly unlikely SCOTUS would rule that LOC is protected while concealed is not. They just want to affirm that bear means loaded, functional carry, then leave it to the states to determine which (or both) they want.

Let's just hope that they also give some indications as to scrutiny, since it seems this is the road we are on.
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 04-16-2013, 12:42 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Will Madigan appeal?

If the Illinois AG does not appeal the 7th CA decision she's pretty much stuck with some form of carry and she'll lose a bunch of Chicago voters.

If Madigan does appeal and loses at SCOTUS, she's no further behind, and may pick up some votes because "at least she tried". And there's always a chance she'll win.

My current thinking is that the politics of the matter are biased towards Illinois appealing Moore. What am I missing?
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 04-16-2013, 12:53 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The Supreme Court appears to be looking for a case where they can only say that “a form of loaded, functional carry must be available.”
I think they could have accomplished that with Kachalsky, but we’ll see with Woollard back in play.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:00 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Options

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
If the Illinois AG does not appeal the 7th CA decision she's pretty much stuck with some form of carry and she'll lose a bunch of Chicago voters.

If Madigan does appeal and loses at SCOTUS, she's no further behind, and may pick up some votes because "at least she tried". And there's always a chance she'll win.

My current thinking is that the politics of the matter are biased towards Illinois appealing Moore. What am I missing?
You're not missing anything. As I've said numerous times, they have backed themselves into a corner and have very, very few options. Only clean getaway is for the legislature to send them a may issue bill that Quinn can sign. Madigan could then claim compliance with the 7th's direction.

Problem (for them) is the IL legislature is pro-gun and is going to either pass a very permissive, shall issue bill or nothing at all. Quinn would absolutely veto a shall issue bill.

At that point, the only options still on the table is to beg the 7th for an extension of their stay(unlikely to be granted), ignore the 7th altogether (very risky and Madigan alone would bear the political fallout), or ask for cert.

Their remaining options are painful for them but delightful for us!!!!!

The least painful is to ask for cert. This makes sense for Madigan both legally and politically.

Personally, this is the case I think SCOTUS wants. Simple and clean, plus they get to whack Illinois again.

If she requests cert and SCOTUS denies, I will be very worried as I don't think Woollard is what they are waiting for. They want Moore. They don't even need to write new law. All they have to do is affirm the ruling of the 7th. Hopefully, they would also include some language as to scrutiny and shall -vs- may issue, but I'll take a win either way.
Reply With Quote
  #741  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:02 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
If the Illinois AG does not appeal the 7th CA decision she's pretty much stuck with some form of carry and she'll lose a bunch of Chicago voters.

If Madigan does appeal and loses at SCOTUS, she's no further behind, and may pick up some votes because "at least she tried". And there's always a chance she'll win.

My current thinking is that the politics of the matter are biased towards Illinois appealing Moore. What am I missing?
Her dad is IL house majority leader, and the Democratic party head in Illinois.
She's running for governor in a state controlled by the party run by her pops. With her dad in charge of the State Legislature,Illinois wont get carry.Either an anti gun carry law is passed, or the clock runs out and each city becomes empowered to ban CCW as they see fit.

As such Lisa Madigan doesnt need to file cert to stop carry: that "problem" will be solved via other means.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:11 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
You're not missing anything. As I've said numerous times, they have backed themselves into a corner and have very, very few options. Only clean getaway is for the legislature to send them a may issue bill that Quinn can sign. Madigan could then claim compliance with the 7th's direction.

Problem (for them) is the IL legislature is pro-gun and is going to either pass a very permissive, shall issue bill or nothing at all. Quinn would absolutely veto a shall issue bill.

At that point, the only options still on the table is to beg the 7th for an extension of their stay(unlikely to be granted), ignore the 7th altogether (very risky and Madigan alone would bear the political fallout), or ask for cert.

Their remaining options are painful for them but delightful for us!!!!!

The least painful is to ask for cert. This makes sense for Madigan both legally and politically.

Personally, this is the case I think SCOTUS wants. Simple and clean, plus they get to whack Illinois again.

If she requests cert and SCOTUS denies, I will be very worried as I don't think Woollard is what they are waiting for. They want Moore. They don't even need to write new law. All they have to do is affirm the ruling of the 7th. Hopefully, they would also include some language as to scrutiny and shall -vs- may issue, but I'll take a win either way.
The problem is that while the majority of the IL legislature is pro gun,Governor Quinn is not.
Michael Madigan controls enough of the IL legislature to prevent a veto override- so while the antis can't pass whatever they want,they've got enough pull to block any pro gun carry bill from becoming law.

If the deadline passes without a statewide law,each city and county becomes authorized to grant or deny carry as they see fit- which means no carry at all for most Illinois residents.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:25 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Well, we certainly have no shortage of denied LTC requests. I -for one -would like to see the type of suit discussed above initiated.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:30 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
I agree completely with this. The Roberts court is conservative in that they like simple, narrow rulings and let lower courts figure out the details.

Moore offers exactly that. Personally, I think it highly unlikely SCOTUS would rule that LOC is protected while concealed is not.
They said carry ready for use in some form is a right, but concealed carry is not in the Heller ruling. It's just that lower courts keep calling that part of the Heller ruling "dicta".
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:30 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Silliness

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
The problem is that while the majority of the IL legislature is pro gun,Governor Quinn is not.
Michael Madigan controls enough of the IL legislature to prevent a veto override- so while the antis can't pass whatever they want,they've got enough pull to block any pro gun carry bill from becoming law.

If the deadline passes without a statewide law,each city and county becomes authorized to grant or deny carry as they see fit- which means no carry at all for most Illinois residents.
Yes, we know IL R's do not have a supermajority. Close, but not quite.

So, it's your assertion that IL can simply ignore the ruling in the 7th with impunity and just not respond at all?

And, we're to believe that the 7th and SCOTUS will do nothing? Nothing at all? They'll just throw up their hands and allow IL to ignore them?
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:36 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
Yes, we know IL R's do not have a supermajority. Close, but not quite.

So, it's your assertion that IL can simply ignore the ruling in the 7th with impunity and just not respond at all?

And, we're to believe that the 7th and SCOTUS will do nothing? Nothing at all? They'll just throw up their hands and allow IL to ignore them?
How's that McDonald thing working out for Chicago? Oops looks like they're still dragging their feed and the lower courts are letting them drag and drag and drag.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-16-2013 at 1:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 04-16-2013, 1:39 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,502
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
I think they could have accomplished that with Kachalsky, but we’ll see with Woollard back in play.
Not really. The only way they could've said "the right to carry exists" would've been by saying "NY may-issue is unconstitutional" (since that was the explicit question in front of them).

It looks like it was farther than they were willing to go on the first date.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 04-16-2013, 2:06 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Fruit

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
How's that McDonald thing working out for Chicago? Oops looks like it's still dragging their feed and the lower courts are letting them drag and drag and drag.
Apples and Oranges. Since McDonald, legislatures and courts have either left handguns in the home alone, or in the case of Chicago thrown up more roadblocks and tried to hide behind the fig leaf of claiming their laws were based on intermediate scrutiny.

This issue before them now is entirely different. They lost Moore at the circuit (unlike McDonald, which they won). The 7th overturned the previous ruling and declared "bear" to be a right. He then stayed his ruling for 180 days so they could decide what to do. Their choices are:

1. Request en-banc. They did and were denied.
2. Pass a law allowing bear of some sort. R dominated legislature will not play ball with them, so that's out.
3. Apply for cert.
4. Ignore the Federal court.

It is my contention they will do #3 as it is the least painful.

It is one thing to pass silly laws that infringe on a right and claim you think they meet the standard of scrutiny. It is quite another to simply ignore an order from a Federal court.

SilverTauron and others seem to imply that the Federal courts would be powerless should this happen.

They are not powerless and have an assortment of tools at their disposal. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. You go look it up for yourself.

To think that a Federal court would do nothing when challenged is simply naive. Judges tend to take their rulings pretty seriously. Ignoring them altogether would not be wise.

There are other reasons they will ask for cert too and they should be self evident, given your opinion of how some legislatures and courts reacted to McDonald.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 04-16-2013, 2:07 PM
disintelligentsia's Avatar
disintelligentsia disintelligentsia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm pretty unhappy with the Court's decision to deny cert in Kachalsky - I thought it was a pretty clean case, presented the issue of shall-issue v may issue cleanly and Gura wrote a great petition for cert. That being said, I find one thing in this denial that gives me hope. None of the justices wrote to express their disagreement with the denial. Thomas is as close as you can get to a pure originalist on the court and given the wording in Heller pertaining to the definition of carry, I'm pretty sure Scalia believes the 2nd requires the right to carry. Neither of these justices are exactly shrinking violets and if they disagree with a decision, even to deny cert, they'd let us know why. Since they didn't write a dissent from the denial of cert, I think that there's a reason to this that is in line with their views as originalists.

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that they think Woolard or Moore will give them a shot to either create a more unified opinion, a cleaner precedent or something more productive for the second amendment.
__________________
"All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife."
Daniel Boone

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 04-17-2013, 11:29 AM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The 7th Circuit is not the 9th. Illinois is not California, socially or politically. All this talk about "ignoring rulings" is bunk.

I'm predicting the legislature will send Quinn a shall-issue bill with moderate restrictions on places of carry (but no BS perimeter/proximity rules) some time next month, and he will sign it. He's threatened vetoes before on issues such as the repeal of capital punishment and civil unions: and yet he wound up signing both. There's a reason he's called "Jello" in that state.
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 04-17-2013, 11:46 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
The 7th Circuit is not the 9th. Illinois is not California, socially or politically. All this talk about "ignoring rulings" is bunk.

I'm predicting the legislature will send Quinn a shall-issue bill with moderate restrictions on places of carry (but no BS perimeter/proximity rules) some time next month, and he will sign it. He's threatened vetoes before on issues such as the repeal of capital punishment and civil unions: and yet he wound up signing both. There's a reason he's called "Jello" in that state.
I grew up in IL: you know,the state which gave rise to Obama.

Quinn is running for re-election against Lisa Madigan,and he's doing poorly at the polls so far.His only effective play for the Democratic nomination is to undermine Lisa Madigan, and he can't do that signing a shall issue carry bill.As long as he stonewalls a viable carry.bill,he keeps Lisa Madigan in the hot seat: does she file for cert and roll the dice,or does she stand aside and let down the millions of Chicago voters expecting her to go down swinging?

If she declines and Quin vetos carry,he can rub it in by saying he's strong on crime while Lisa Madigan cowed to the "gun lobby" by not going to the SCOTUS.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 04-17-2013, 12:19 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
I grew up in IL: you know,the state which gave rise to Obama.

Quinn is running for re-election against Lisa Madigan,and he's doing poorly at the polls so far.His only effective play for the Democratic nomination is to undermine Lisa Madigan, and he can't do that signing a shall issue carry bill.As long as he stonewalls a viable carry.bill,he keeps Lisa Madigan in the hot seat: does she file for cert and roll the dice,or does she stand aside and let down the millions of Chicago voters expecting her to go down swinging?

If she declines and Quin vetos carry,he can rub it in by saying he's strong on crime while Lisa Madigan cowed to the "gun lobby" by not going to the SCOTUS.
Doing poorly in the polls is the reason he'll sign it, to keep his support among Downstate Democrats in any primary challenge against Madigan.
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 04-17-2013, 12:39 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

On this issue Illinois has turned into the quintessential rock and the hard place. This is chess strategy at its pinnacle. Very interested to see how this unfolds. If the Governor vetoes he gets Vermont style carry. If he signs shall-issue legislation he betrays his base.

If Madigan does not appeal, she risks appearing soft on guns. If she does appeal and loses, she could help extend carry rights to the whole country. I can only imagine how that colors her long range political aspirations.

The only thing that has to happen for this rub to play out is for the pro-gun folks in the legislature to stick to their, well, guns. They cannot compromise on shall issue.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 04-17-2013 at 12:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 04-17-2013, 12:55 PM
skinnytrees skinnytrees is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 82
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
On this issue Illinois has turned into the quintessential rock and the hard place. This is chess strategy at its pinnacle. Very interested to see how this unfolds. If the Governor vetoes he gets Vermont style carry. If he signs shall-issue legislation he betrays his base.

If Madigan does not appeal, she risks appearing soft on guns. If she does appeal and loses, she could help extend carry rights to the whole country. I can only imagine how that colors her long range political aspirations.

The only thing that has to happen for this rub to play out is for the pro-gun folks in the legislature to stick to their, well, guns. They cannot compromise on shall issue.
Or both just continue to do what they always do.

Blame downstate Republicans for Chicago's problems
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 04-17-2013, 1:45 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

With our expectations for Kashalsky proven false, everything else is rank speculation. All I can do for now is get more serious about planning a possible evacuation from this state.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 04-17-2013, 2:35 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 730
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can see SCOTUS denying cert in Kachalsky for two reasons. First, having a devious mind, I can imagine certain justices denying cert in order to embolden Madigan to petition for cert in Moore. After all, the denial in Kachalsky in some peoples minds is telegraphing SCOTUS' belief that the 2nd amendment may be limited to the home as Madigan believes. If she believes that SCOTUS agrees with her then overturning the 7th circuit would be the way to cement it.

Secondly, as much as Gura attempted to make Kachalsky a carry case, it really looks like a concealed carry case. All of the argument revolves around NY's concealed licensing scheme and the relief requested is to have NY issue concealed carry permits. If SCOTUS believes that open carry is protected and concealed carry can be regulated as the 19th century cases cited in Heller indicated, another case would be the one to deal with this (Moore or Woollard). Moore being the best since SCOTUS can achieve this by striking down a single law without getting into trying to decide with part of which law need to be struck in Kachalsky.

We all know that if OC is required to be legal, CA, NY, NJ, MD and the rest will fall head over heals convincing people to CC.
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 04-17-2013, 2:58 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
With our expectations for Kashalsky proven false, everything else is rank speculation. All I can do for now is get more serious about planning a possible evacuation from this state.
That's part of the goal of our Democrat commissars in Sacramento. By making it all but impossible for us to keep our guns they see an opportunity to drive gun owners out of the state and shift the state further left. It doesn't matter if Jerry vetoes them this year because they'll pass the same bans on pretty much anything and everything gun related and get them signed by Governor Newsom in 2015. Frankly if I could afford to move I'd be writing this from Arizona, Utah, or Texas.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 04-17-2013, 10:40 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

May-issue is dead in Illinois. Failed by a whopping 31 to 76.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state...ment_form=true

It's shall-issue or the "cliff" and shall-issue is up for vote today (4/18).
Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 04-17-2013, 11:12 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,144
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
May-issue is dead in Illinois. Failed by a whopping 31 to 76.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state...ment_form=true

It's shall-issue or the "cliff" and shall-issue is up for vote today (4/18).
Even if the go over the "cliff", Illinois' "home rule" system will allow each county to create their own laws including may-issue laws with their own county specific licenses that are de facto no-issue. Cook county will just setup a system that makes only their own licenses valid in Cook county and then refuse to issue.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-17-2013 at 11:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 04-17-2013, 11:23 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Even if the go over the "cliff", Illinois' "home rule" system will allow each county to create their own laws including may-issue laws with their own county specific licenses that are de facto no-issue. Cook county will just setup a system that makes only their own licenses valid in Cook county and then refuse to issue.
Which we're prepared for.
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 8:11 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.