GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2010, 21:13   #1
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Center Console Question

I have read the legislation and it is my understanding that you can carry your weapon in center console and glove box.
I hear people are still getting into some trouble of this situation??
I carry my holstered G22 unloaded in my center console and have a couple fully loaded magazines in the bottom of the console...
Anyone see a problem with this, I never get a strait answer from the LE around here because quite honestly alot of them are themselves unclear on this subject....
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 08:24   #2
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
The UUW Statute says the firearm must either be 1) disassembled into an inoperable state, 2) inaccessible or 3) unloaded and fully enclosed in a case. The IL SC recently ruled in Diggins that a center console constitutes a case, as defined by the UUW Statute. Carrying an unloaded firearm, with loaded magazines accessible, inside your fully enclosed center console would exempt you from the UUW charge.

****IMPORTANT****

1) Transporting an unloaded firearm inside a center console does not exempt you from a Wildlife Code violation, as the case is not specifically designed to house a firearm. It has been argued by some LEO and SA's that the IL "complied" statutes allows for a WC violation (misdemeanor). So, if you choose to do this, although you would not face a felony charge, you may become a test case for a WC violation (assuming you are not engaged in hunting/fishing ect...).

2) If you open the center console while not on your own property, or property which you would be legal to possess an uncased firearm, YOU WOULD BE COMMITTING UUW!

IMHO, a much better (and more practical) way to "transport" a firearm in your vehicle, or on your person, would be to use a case designed to house a firearm, that also allows access to the firearm (i.e. CCW fanny pack or Maxpedition Versi Pack). Again, the firearm must be unloaded and fully enclosed, but you could have the loaded magazine in the same compartment.

For more information -

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/1-154.pdf

Last edited by 05FLHT; 01-27-2010 at 08:27..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 17:31   #3
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
1) Transporting an unloaded firearm inside a center console does not exempt you from a Wildlife Code violation, as the case is not specifically designed to house a firearm. It has been argued by some LEO and SA's that the IL "complied" statutes allows for a WC violation (misdemeanor). So, if you choose to do this, although you would not face a felony charge, you may become a test case for a WC violation (assuming you are not engaged in hunting/fishing ect...).
Actually a person would not be a test case. It's already been tested and upheld by the courts all over the state numerous times every year. Uncased gun even while not engaged in hunting is a fairly common charge.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 19:16   #4
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,853
Blog Entries: 13
isp is certainly correct, although I think it's a stupid, chincy, non-sensical type of charge. I had a buddy once who was out shooting clay birds in his backyard range (on his own property) with a Win 1200 Defender (8-shot mag), and a Consvtn. Ofcr. came out of the woods and wrote him a ticket for having an unplugged shotgun in the field during hunting season. Clearly, my buddy wasn't hunting and was even on his own property and the case of clay birds (or what was left of it) and the pigeon thrower were there.

This was totally legal, because conservation officers do not have to respect private property when they are enforcing conservation laws...

I have a problem with a conservation officer (or a state's attorney) using this technically legal application of the law for something it obviously was not intended for... This kind of silliness/abuse of power is what gets the anti-govt./conspiracy theory/militia-movement/KKK/American Nazi Party/World Church of the Creator whackos all fired up with their anti-govt. speech. (Of course, it gives them credibility [which they don't deserve], because in this case they are right...) Every time a State's Atty. "wins" a case based on conservation law where it really shouldn't be applied is not really a "win"...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 19:36   #5
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
isp is certainly correct, although I think it's a stupid, chincy, non-sensical type of charge. I had a buddy once who was out shooting clay birds in his backyard range (on his own property) with a Win 1200 Defender (8-shot mag), and a Consvtn. Ofcr. came out of the woods and wrote him a ticket for having an unplugged shotgun in the field during hunting season.
He should have taken that one to court. Some CPOs tend to be a bit overboard.
Here's another CPO story.
My brother use to be a buckskinner of sorts when he was really getting into blackpowder hunting. Made his clothes and all his gun accessories including gun case. He'd made a real nice case out of deer skin with the fringe and bead work. It completely covered the gun and the end was made to tie to close the case. DNR was running a check near where he was deer hunting and he was stopped coming home. The CPO wrote him a ticket for uncased gun because she said it wasn't a factory made case. He fought the ticket. I went to court just to see what the judge would say. The CPO got on the stand and said the case wasn't a factory made therefore it wasn't legal. She said when the statute said "specifically made for a firearm" that it meant factory made. The judge wasn't happy with that testimony. No where has the law stated the case had to be factory made. Brother didn't even have to testify. Judge gave a directed verdict and explained his ruling to the CPO. Afterwards I talked to a buddy who was legal counsel for DNR about her testimony. He assured me their CPOs are not taught cases have to be factory made. He contacted the CPO chief and they got it straightened out with their CPOs.
DNR has some really good CPOs. I've worked with quite a few of them and some are very good friends. I've also worked with some who are way way overboard on what they think and do.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 07:04   #6
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x59307674...eoria-gun-case

As it's been said, this doesn't exempt you from the Wildlife Code.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 22:23   #7
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,853
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
He should have taken that one to court. Some CPOs tend to be a bit overboard.
Here's another CPO story.
My brother use to be a buckskinner of sorts when he was really getting into blackpowder hunting. Made his clothes and all his gun accessories including gun case. He'd made a real nice case out of deer skin with the fringe and bead work. It completely covered the gun and the end was made to tie to close the case. DNR was running a check near where he was deer hunting and he was stopped coming home. The CPO wrote him a ticket for uncased gun because she said it wasn't a factory made case. He fought the ticket. I went to court just to see what the judge would say. The CPO got on the stand and said the case wasn't a factory made therefore it wasn't legal. She said when the statute said "specifically made for a firearm" that it meant factory made. The judge wasn't happy with that testimony. No where has the law stated the case had to be factory made. Brother didn't even have to testify. Judge gave a directed verdict and explained his ruling to the CPO. Afterwards I talked to a buddy who was legal counsel for DNR about her testimony. He assured me their CPOs are not taught cases have to be factory made. He contacted the CPO chief and they got it straightened out with their CPOs.
DNR has some really good CPOs. I've worked with quite a few of them and some are very good friends. I've also worked with some who are way way overboard on what they think and do.
Yeah, that's been my exact experience too. The overzealous ones give all the rest a bad name, of course...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 00:09   #8
8-Ball
Drifting Cowboy
 
8-Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 5,983
Anyone have a link to the actual law about this center console thing? I'd like to look it over.
__________________
R.I.P

23skidoo (Jeff), CJLandry (Chad), Silent_Runner (Gloria), & GioaJack

Taken too soon.
8-Ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 00:25   #9
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8-Ball View Post
Anyone have a link to the actual law about this center console thing? I'd like to look it over.
Look at post number 2
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 21:46   #10
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,853
Blog Entries: 13
8-ball,
There is NO legislation on this issue. This stems from an ILLINOIS Supreme Court ruling issued late last year (2009) on a case out of Peoria County wherein a man was arrested, charged, and convicted of UUW (Unlawful Use of Weapons) for having a gun in the center console of his car. He was convicted, and after his sentence was pretty much over, he finally got in front of the I.S.C. and they reversed the conviction.

Some MAJOR aspects of their ruling that are almost never stated are:

To qualify as "a case," the center console must lock,
The gun still must be unloaded,

And, this only applies to the UUW statute. If you have the gun in the center console, you can still be charged with a wildlife code violation for having the gun "accessible."

For Concealed Carry to work in IL., there's going to have to be several laws revised...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 21:50   #11
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,853
Blog Entries: 13
Here's a pretty good review of the issue with citation:

http://legaldefenders.blogspot.com/2...-illinois.html
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 22:27   #12
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
Here's a pretty good review of the issue with citation:

http://legaldefenders.blogspot.com/2...-illinois.html
There are a few too many errors in this blog, and this is a blog, not legal legislation, and there is actually legislation on this matter, coming from the afore mentioned supreme court ruling...I have many LEO buddies in states such as GA and TX and they all laught at the fact that the LEOs here in IL are worried about more danger...
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 04:00   #13
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIUC4 View Post
There are a few too many errors in this blog, and this is a blog, not legal legislation, and there is actually legislation on this matter, coming from the afore mentioned supreme court ruling...I have many LEO buddies in states such as GA and TX and they all laught at the fact that the LEOs here in IL are worried about more danger...
You are ill-informed. There is NO statute in Illinois regarding guns that specifically references "center consoles." You won't see it which is why you can't find it (that, and because you are asking other members of this thread to do the work so that you don't have to ). The Supreme Court decision that has been given to you (a few times now) contains CASE LAW. You should take a few minutes to review what case law is and how it affects the application of the law on the street.

What has been said to you, a few times now, is that Illinois law requires firearms to be secured in a case during transportation to avoid prosecution until the UUW law. The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that in some cases, many types of "center consoles" meet the requirements established in the "closed case" mandate under the law. But in many cases, a firearm transported in a center console may not be sufficient to protect you from prosecution under the Wildlife Code which has somewhat different requirements.

Now, in the next legislative session, you MAY see language pop up in a bill with the words "center console" because of the recent decision. But as of yet, no such language exists.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 06:39   #14
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,853
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIUC4 View Post
There are a few too many errors in this blog, and this is a blog, not legal legislation, and there is actually legislation on this matter, coming from the afore mentioned supreme court ruling...I have many LEO buddies in states such as GA and TX and they all laught at the fact that the LEOs here in IL are worried about more danger...
Well, the blog I posted above gave a nice synopsis, which is why I posted it. There are no factual errors in the blog itself, but if you don't trust it, go to a legal library and look up the case as cited at that blog by Supreme Court case number and name...

It sounds like (although not totally clear) that you may be asking about new legislation that is not yet law, but is being proposed in the legislature?? If that is the case, you can go to the Illinois legislature's website and look it up. Most of the proposed legislation is listed there.

Finally, LEOs here in Illinois are worried about this, because this has been an ultra-liberal state for FAR TOO LONG! The restrictions of our rights have been in place so long that even LEOs (typically conservative-minded) have fallen prey to the liberal beliefs and have been taught that you can't trust the population. Then, pundits, media, and police administrators (IACP - who are very political and very liberal-minded, it seems) all say that it would be dangerous to have guns in LOCKED center consoles and you get more of this feeling. So, yeah, misinformed/brainwashed LEOs are worried about this.

THIS LEO is NOT! Concealed Carry lowers crime. Concealed Carry holders are extremely rarely involved in misbehavior. These are not people we need to worry about. Of course, this center console ruling applies to EVERYONE, not just good folks, so there is a tiny bit of unfortunateness that we can't charge a real bad guy with carrying in the console...

The bottom line that LEOs who are against this are not thinking about is: the bad guys are carrying in their UNlocked consoles, in their pants, in their coats, in their car doors, in their car seats, etc., etc., etc. - so legislation or supreme court rulings mean nothing to them and the danger an LEO should worry about is already there, and allowing good people to carry adds nothing to an LEOs worries.

Logic over emotions...
__________________
Glock Commemoratives

I want to buy your commemorative Glock! Looking for: FBI 100yr, Bell Helo, FOP Lodge1, Kiowa Warrior, SCI, and any new/unknown-to-me commemoratives.
MakeMineA10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 11:19   #15
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
THIS LEO is NOT! Concealed Carry lowers crime. Concealed Carry holders are extremely rarely involved in misbehavior. These are not people we need to worry about. Of course, this center console ruling applies to EVERYONE, not just good folks, so there is a tiny bit of unfortunateness that we can't charge a real bad guy with carrying in the console...

I like where your thinking is on this topic, NOW why can we not get IL Legislation to see that CCLs are not an easy thing to get, the FOID card process is already long enough, and I believe that IL is the only state that require's the use of a FOID...I am leaving this state soon to become LE in Texas....Everytime that you make a traffic stop you must understand that the people are armed...makes you stay and you toes more and not let your guard down...
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 11:23   #16
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIUC4 View Post

I like where your thinking is on this topic, NOW why can we not get IL Legislation to see that CCLs are not an easy thing to get, the FOID card process is already long enough, and I believe that IL is the only state that require's the use of a FOID...I am leaving this state soon to become LE in Texas....Everytime that you make a traffic stop you must understand that the people are armed...makes you stay and you toes more and not let your guard down...
If you have to ask this question, then you need to spend considerable time learning about, and understanding, Michael Madigan.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 11:30   #17
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIUC4 View Post
, and I believe that IL is the only state that require's the use of a FOID
NJ also has FOID.
At least IL doesn't have firearms registration/license, a pre-purchase permit, inspection of the firearm after purchase, restriction/approval on type of firearm purchase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
If you have to ask this question, then you need to spend considerable time learning about, and understanding, Michael Madigan.
Right there is the absolute truth. As long as The Sphinx is running the House there won't be CCW in IL. Doesn't matter who gets elected governor.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:11   #18
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post


Right there is the absolute truth. As long as The Sphinx is running the House there won't be CCW in IL. Doesn't matter who gets elected governor.
Yes, indeed. The only hope Brady would have, if elected, is to veto every single spending bill passed by the house and senate until Madigan and Cullerton call a CCW bill for a vote. And that would take balls of solid iron AND a desire to be a single term governor.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:17   #19
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
Micheal Madigan = Yet another reason that I am leaving this state.....
__________________
Glock 22
Taurus 66B6 .357 Mag
Rem 870 Express Mag
AK 47
Smith and Wesson 657 .41 Mag
SIUC4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:47   #20
Ryobi
SummertimeRules
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,307
Please. You say the LE in your area don't know the one thing they do know- state law. Other "police friends" you happen to have laugh at other cops for recognizing the potential for increased danger during traffic stops. I think both things happened within the confines of the internet, if at all.
Ryobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 13:33   #21
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post


Right there is the absolute truth. As long as The Sphinx is running the House there won't be CCW in IL. Doesn't matter who gets elected governor.
Not necessarily so. More information on US vs Skoien here -

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=20222

Short of The SCOTUS setting the level of scrutiny in McDonald vs. Chicago, strict scrutiny will be used in the 7th circuit when addressing the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense."

Off the top of my head, carry challenges have already been filed in DC, California (two that I know of) and the SC of NY or NJ (I can't remember) just denied hearing a case. I have pretty good suspicion that if a challenge in the 7th circuit has not already been written, there will be one ready to go post McDonald.

On a side note, where are Daley and Madigan going to get the $$$ to fight any of this. The handwriting is on the wall for McDonald as it is not a question of "if," but of "how" to incorporate the Second. The flagship "Chicago" is sinking fast in a big sea of taxpayer unrest and blatant corruption.

Last edited by 05FLHT; 02-19-2010 at 13:35..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 13:53   #22
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
Not necessarily so. More information on US vs Skoien here -

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=20222

Short of The SCOTUS setting the level of scrutiny in McDonald vs. Chicago, strict scrutiny will be used in the 7th circuit when addressing the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense."

Off the top of my head, carry challenges have already been filed in DC, California (two that I know of) and the SC of NY or NJ (I can't remember) just denied hearing a case. I have pretty good suspicion that if a challenge in the 7th circuit has not already been written, there will be one ready to go post McDonald.

On a side note, where are Daley and Madigan going to get the $$$ to fight any of this. The handwriting is on the wall for McDonald as it is not a question of "if," but of "how" to incorporate the Second. The flagship "Chicago" is sinking fast in a big sea of taxpayer unrest and blatant corruption.
First...
Yes, the handwriting is on the wall for McDonald. But take some time and read about what Supreme Court decisions actually accomplish and HOW. They are EXTREMELY limited in their scope. The issue in McDonald will ultimately decide whether or not the precedent set in the Heller decision will apply to the states (read = whether or not Chicago's and similar gun bans and registration are Constitutional). McDonald WILL NOT ESTABLISH CONCEALED CARRY IN ILLINOIS. Why? Because that is NOT the issue before the Court. All the sheeple thought Heller would set them free too. But it didn't. Because SCOTUS decisions are limited to the EXACT and PRECISE question posed to the Court. There is no CONCEALED CARRY provision in the legal argument in McDonald. The only argument will center around whether or not Chicago's gun ban and registration are Constitutional.

Second...
Even if gun bans are ruled unConstitutional in McDonald, the legislature would still have to introduce and pass a concealed carry bill and the governor would have to sign it. MICHAEL MADIGAN WILL NOT CALL THAT BILL FOR A VOTE. Ever. He'll die first. Why, at I-GOLD last year (which I attended) did a democratic Governor Quinn so quickly vow that he would sign a CCW bill if it was passed? Because... he has EVERY CONFIDENCE that the bill will never be read on the floor, much less make it out of committee.

Third...
Federal district court rulings in other districts outside of Illinois will have zero influence on Illinois law.

Please....... PLEASE...... figure out what you're talking about before you spew this stuff publicly. You just clearly don't understand how the principles here are working.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227

Last edited by volsbear; 02-19-2010 at 14:02..
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 13:57   #23
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
What Volsbear said. McDonald, like Heller, is not about CCW. It is about registration. Even if the USSC finds for McDonald it has no bearing at all on CCW.
Madigan doesn't need any dollars to fight CCW. All he has to do is exactly like he's done every year in the past - just don't let the bills on the floor for a vote.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:09   #24
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
First...
Yes, the handwriting is on the wall for McDonald. But take some read and read about what Supreme Court decisions actually accomplish and HOW. They are EXTREMELY limited in their scope. The issue in McDonald will ultimately decide whether or not the precedent set in the Heller decision will apply to the states (read = whether or not Chicago's and similar gun bans are Constitutional). McDonald WILL NOT ESTABLISH CONCEALED CARRY IN ILLINOIS. Why? Because that is NOT the issue before the Court. All the sheeple though Heller would set them free too. But it didn't. Because SCOTUS decision are limited to the EXACT and PRECISE question posed to the Court. There is no CONCEALED CARRY provision in the legal argument in McDonald. The only argument will center around whether or not Chicago's gun ban is legal.

Second...
Even if gun bans are ruled unConstitutional in McDonald, the legislature would still have to introduce and pass a concealed carry bill and the governor would have to sign it. MICHAEL MADIGAN WILL NOT CALL THAT BILL FOR A VOTE. Ever. He'll die first.

Third...
Federal district court rulings in other districts outside of Illinois will have zero influence on Illinois law.

Please....... PLEASE...... figure out what you're talking about before you spew this stuff publicly. You just clearly don't understand how the principles here are working.
You may want to visit the link I posted and review the cited case, in which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already set the level of scrutiny as "strict" for the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense." If The SCOTUS does not set the level of scrutiny in McDonald, which they may or may not (it is their choice), strict scrutiny will be used in the 7th Circuit.

I guess Madigan could say no to a federal court ruling, if it had to go that far, but I don't think that would last too long. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights is just a little bit bigger even than Madigans over inflated head.

As to your assumption that a Federal Appeals Court does not have jurisdiction, I'll let the internet be your guide -

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (in case citations, 7th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the courts in the following districts:
Central District of Illinois
Northern District of Illinois
Southern District of Illinois
Northern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Western District of Wisconsin

You may not want to agree with what I say (although I don't know why), but please look at the information that I post before you tell me that I am wrong. Ok, Thanks.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:17   #25
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
What Volsbear said. McDonald, like Heller, is not about CCW. It is about registration. Even if the USSC finds for McDonald it has no bearing at all on CCW.
Madigan doesn't need any dollars to fight CCW. All he has to do is exactly like he's done every year in the past - just don't let the bills on the floor for a vote.
With all due respect, I never said that Heller, or McDonald for that matter was in regards to to carry. They both are however directly related to the keeping and bearing of arms. Heller declared the right of the individual, over the collective, and McDonald deals with incorporating the right against the States.

If, and when, a challenge is brought to the fact the Illinois restricts the right of citizens to lawfully bear arms (openly or concealed), the level of scrutiny used in the 7th Circuit is set at strict for the "core" Second Amendment issue of "self defense." I could be wrong, but I do not think "broken down into a non-functioning state," "inaccessible" or "unloaded and encased" is going to pass muster.
05FLHT is offline   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 -6. The time now is 21:39.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,360
405 Members
955 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42