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 02-19-2010, 14:33   #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 14:35..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:53   #22
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,160
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 15:02..
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 14:57   #23
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,987
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, 15:09   #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, 15:17   #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
Old 02-19-2010, 15:17   #26
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,987
If the USSC came down with a ruling mandating IL to implement CCW then obviously Madigan has no say. Don't hold your breath. The USSC won't rule such in McDonald since CCW is not the issue before the court. There is nothing in the pleadings concerning CCW. It's about being able to possess and register a gun in Chicago. Possession doesn't not equate to CCW.
Heller didn't change anything in WDC concerning CCW.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 15:48   #27
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
If the USSC came down with a ruling mandating IL to implement CCW then obviously Madigan has no say. Don't hold your breath. The USSC won't rule such in McDonald since CCW is not the issue before the court. There is nothing in the pleadings concerning CCW. It's about being able to possess and register a gun in Chicago. Possession doesn't not equate to CCW.
Heller didn't change anything in WDC concerning CCW.

You need to look at the big picture. Heller declared the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms - shall not be infringed, is an individual right. Individual right, Check 1. McDonald will answer the question, is the Second Amendment incorporated against the States via the 14th Amendment (due process) or if the right to bear arms is a privilege or Immunity of being a citizen. (either way) incorporated against the States, Check 2.

Now we have the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms, that is incorporated against the States. If The SCOTUS does not set the level of scrutiny in McDonald, the level has already been set in the 7th Circuit at strict(which does include Illinois). At that point, all it takes is a case to challenge the current situation in Illinois, where the right to lawfully bear arms (both openly and concealed) is legislated illegal. My guess is "shall not be infringed," is going to be one hell of a hurdle for Illinois to overcome.

ETA - Heller didn't change anything in DC as far as right to carry, but Palmer vs. DC might.

Last edited by 05FLHT; 02-11-2011 at 15:29..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 16:43   #28
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
Actually, I think you're all right, you're just missing each other's fine points, which is causing confusion.

05FLHT, the one thing I'd say that is against your route of logic is that the US Supreme Court probably WILL limit the effect of their ruling. They typically do in really high-level issues like this, because in general the SC likes changes to go slowly and incrementally, rather than fast and broadly...

You can look at the issue of Civil Rights as an example. Tremendous strides were made, but it took many cases over a few decades to succeed with that. And, it took many people willing to be subjugated to the tyranny that lead to the decisions. (Except in civil rights, the minorities were oppressed more than volunteering, although many of them put themselves in positions to have it done to them...)
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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, 17:38   #29
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
You need to look at the big picture. Heller declared the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms - shall not be infringed, is an individual right. Individual right, Check 1. McDonald will answer the question, is the Second Amendment incorporated against the States via the 14th Amendment (due process) or if the right to bear arms is a privilege or Immunity of being a citizen. (either way) incorporated against the States, Check 2.

Now we have the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms, that is incorporated against the States. If The SCOTUS does not set the level of scrutiny in McDonald, the level has already been set in the 7th Circuit at strict(which does include Illinois). At that point, all it takes is a case to challenge the current situation in Illinois, where the right to lawfully bear arms (both openly and concealed) is legislated illegal. My guess is "shall not be infringed," is going to be one hell of a hurdle for Illinois to overcome.

ETA - Heller didn't change anything in DC as far as right to carry, but Palmer vs. DC might.
I do look at the big picture. I also understand how the courts work. I reviewed court cases a lot of years and how they impacted IL law.
The fact is regardless of what the USSC rules the case has nothing to do with CCW. If a favorable ruling the USSC is looking at whether Chicago can effectively ban the possession of handguns due to their ordinance of no new registrations. It has nothing to do with CCW. It's about banning possession by enacting a law where no new can be registered. So if the USSC rules in favor of McDonald the end result will be Chicago can't enact a registration plan that eliminates new possessions. Even Heller didn't rule out registration, only the method it was implemented.
There's a tremendous distance between ruling the city cannot implement its form of registration and forcing a state to implement CCW. In McDonald the state is not even at issue. It's about Chicago.
You can hope all you want. But just because you hope for something doesn't mean it's fact. The fact is McDonald isn't about CCW and CCW is not at issue before the court.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 07:41   #30
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
I do look at the big picture. I also understand how the courts work. I reviewed court cases a lot of years and how they impacted IL law.
The fact is regardless of what the USSC rules the case has nothing to do with CCW. If a favorable ruling the USSC is looking at whether Chicago can effectively ban the possession of handguns due to their ordinance of no new registrations. It has nothing to do with CCW. It's about banning possession by enacting a law where no new can be registered. So if the USSC rules in favor of McDonald the end result will be Chicago can't enact a registration plan that eliminates new possessions. Even Heller didn't rule out registration, only the method it was implemented.
There's a tremendous distance between ruling the city cannot implement its form of registration and forcing a state to implement CCW. In McDonald the state is not even at issue. It's about Chicago.
You can hope all you want. But just because you hope for something doesn't mean it's fact. The fact is McDonald isn't about CCW and CCW is not at issue before the court.
I have not said that the court, in McDonald, is answering the question of CCW. If you really think I am saying this, please point out my post so I can correct the mistake. McDonald, by the way, is a little big bigger than "banning possession by enacting a law where no new can be registered," as the court is answering the question of how to incorporate the Second Amendment against the States (DP or P&I). If The SCOTUS incorporates the Second Amendment against the States, they are incorporating the right to keep (your answer to Chicago's ban) and bear arms.

I will emphatically state again, just so we a crystal clear, that McDonald is not directly addressing the right to carry (or bear) a firearm, although the court did address the right to self defense in Heller, stating it was a protected individual right. What Heller did, and what McDonald will do however, is set the legal basis for further court challenges, including the current situation in Illinois where it is legislated illegal to bear arms (openly or concealed). If you remember in Heller, the court did address concealed firearms and stated they could be regulated by the States. However, once the right is incorporated, and if the level of scrutiny remains set at strict for the 7th Circuit, I find it hard to fathom that a ban on the right to bear arms, both concealed and openly, will be held as not infringing.

There may be "tremendous distance between ruling the city cannot implement its form of registration and forcing a state to implement CCW,"but that distance will be filled with a new court challenge specifically dealing the the current state of Illinois law infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 11:52   #31
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
I have not said that the court, in McDonald, is answering the question of CCW. If you really think I am saying this, please point out my post so I can correct the mistake.
Read the third paragraph in your post #21. You interjected the carry issue with the McDonald case. Carrying is not at issue in McDonald.
Your paragraph following that you interject that Madigan is going to somehow have to come up with money to fight it. McDonald is an issue with Chicago and registration by city ordinance. The state of IL does not have registration so Madigan is not involved.

Quote:
I will emphatically state again, just so we a crystal clear, that McDonald is not directly addressing the right to carry (or bear) a firearm,
If you want to make it crystal clear then don't try interjecting carrying into this. McDonald is not about carrying.

Quote:
If you remember in Heller, the court did address concealed firearms and stated they could be regulated by the States.
That's correct but nothing was said about CCW. Heller only dealt with the way WDC effectively eliminated possession of guns because of the registration law, same thing that's occurring in Chicago. The ruling in Heller did nothing to change carrying a firearm, only forcing WDC to enact different registration law.
So don't think much will change in the state regardless of whatever the USSC rules. At best Chicago will be forced to change its registration laws. To think that will somehow force IL to adopt any CCW legislation is not realistic nor legally required.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 14:21   #32
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
Read the third paragraph in your post #21. You interjected the carry issue with the McDonald case. Carrying is not at issue in McDonald.
Your paragraph following that you interject that Madigan is going to somehow have to come up with money to fight it. McDonald is an issue with Chicago and registration by city ordinance. The state of IL does not have registration so Madigan is not involved.


If you want to make it crystal clear then don't try interjecting carrying into this. McDonald is not about carrying.


That's correct but nothing was said about CCW. Heller only dealt with the way WDC effectively eliminated possession of guns because of the registration law, same thing that's occurring in Chicago. The ruling in Heller did nothing to change carrying a firearm, only forcing WDC to enact different registration law.
So don't think much will change in the state regardless of whatever the USSC rules. At best Chicago will be forced to change its registration laws. To think that will somehow force IL to adopt any CCW legislation is not realistic nor legally required.
First off, FACE PALM.

Post #21 is a response to your quote, which I included in my post, where you stated your belief that Illinois will never have concealed carry because of the Speaker of the House, Michael Madigan.

My response to you is to first advise you that I do not necessarily believe that to be the case.

To support my belief a link to a discussion of the recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in US vs. Skoien, which short a setting of the level of scrutiny by The SCOTUS in McDonald vs. Chicago, sets the default level of scrutiny at strict.

Next I advise of the several cases which have been filed in regards to carrying of a firearm for self defense. I express my belief, and I will quote myself directly from post #21, "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." To clarify, I stated that it is my belief and challenge will be filed within the jurisdiction of the 7th Circuit post (post means after) Mcdonald to challenge Illinois infringement of the right to bear arms.

Furthermore, I go on to make a comment regarding the ridiculous amount of $$$ being spent on fighting a clearly unconstitutional ban on handguns (for god sake, it is nearly identical to the ban DC had) and express my belief that a bankrupt City of Chicago and State of Illinois will not be able to justify spending additional taxpayer $$$ on fighting clearly unconstitutional challenges.

I am sorry sir, but you are mistaken. Heller and a post McDonald incorporation of the Second Amendment will allow for a challenge of the Illinois ban on concealed, or openly carried firearms for self defense. Short of The SCOTUS setting a level of scrutiny in McDonald, the default level has been set in the 7th Circuit via US vs. Skoien at strict. A ban on the bearing of arms, openly and concealed, for self defense is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE DECIDED BY THE SCOTUS.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 15:32   #33
SIUC4
Glockness
 
SIUC4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 793
First of FACE PALM.......LOVE IT!
__________________
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 02-20-2010, 19:05   #34
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
I am sorry sir, but you are mistaken. Heller and a post McDonald incorporation of the Second Amendment will allow for a challenge of the Illinois ban on concealed, or openly carried firearms for self defense. Short of The SCOTUS setting a level of scrutiny in McDonald, the default level has been set in the 7th Circuit via US vs. Skoien at strict. A ban on the bearing of arms, openly and concealed, for self defense is a clear infringement of the Second Amendment, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE DECIDED BY THE SCOTUS.
Even if Heller, and McDonald (if the Court rules in our favor) and a list of future not-yet-filed cases end up pro 2-A, the Court is very unlikely to frame language in a decision that will result in CCW being rammed down the throat of Illinois. All things being equal, the Court has ALWAYS deferred to the "reasonable restriction" standard as it pertains to civil liberties. There ARE reasonable restrictions, and there needs to be for very good reason. In the context of firearms, the Court will likely rule that gun bans (and registration for the purpose of effecting gun bans and for hassling gun owners) are in fact unreasonable. But considering history, it seems extremely unlikely that the Court will find Illinois gun laws to be unreasonable restrictions on second amendment rights. If anything, they will defer to state sovereignty and simply say "it's a states' rights issue" and defer to the Illinois legislature.

In that case, YOU STILL NEED TO PASS A BILL and get it signed. In order to pass a bill, it needs to make it past Mike Madigan. And it won't. Not while he breaths.

You can pipe dream all you want but it's extremely rare for the Court to ram sweeping changes down a state's throat. It's far more likely that the Court would say something to the extent of, "CCW is a states' rights issue, 48 states want CCW, and Illinois isn't one of them."
__________________
"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 02-20-2010, 20:46   #35
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,987
You just don't understand what I and volsbear are trying to explain to you. The issue before the USSC has nothing to do with CCW nor does it have anything to do with the state of IL. You're hoping for some court response but the case at hand has nothing to do with what result you are hoping for. It makes no more sense than to think the USSC is going to force IL to allow full auto. It's just not an issue before the court. What may or may not follow McDonald is irrelevant to McDonald.
Additionally your thinking that Madigan is spending any money fighting any gun law shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process. Madigan hasn't, isn't, and doesn't have to come up with dollars to fight anything. The state of IL is not at issue in McDonald. It's about a Chicago ordinance, not anything IL has passed as law.
If you think Heller resulted in the allowance of CCW in WDC then just try it. Let us know how it works out for you. You might want to get yourself a good attorney first. You'll need it. The USSC ruling in Heller had nothing to do with CCW.
Your view of what you think the USSC is ruling on shows you're spending way too much time reading the stuff put out but some at ILCarry.com and ISRA. If the USSC rules in favor of McDonald you won't see any change in IL laws as nothing in McDonald pertains to IL law. It won't change IL anymore than it will force any other state to lessen their CCW laws. It's just not an issue before the court.
Volsbear did a very good job of explaining the process. He knows of which he speaks. Just wishing something otherwise does not make it so. You can wish all you want but facts are what you are wishing to happen is not reality.
__________________
183rd FBINA
isp2605 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 21:25   #36
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,856
Blog Entries: 13
A better question in my mind is why, with 37 states having SHALL ISSUE CCW laws on the books, and 2 states having no restrictions whatsoever, and three of the 9 "May-Issue" states running their CCW programs AS IF THEY WERE shall-issue, WHY THE HELL DO WE NOT JUST GO FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THE 2nd AMEND.? The time has never been as ripe as now.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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 02-21-2010, 07:36   #37
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
A better question in my mind is why, with 37 states having SHALL ISSUE CCW laws on the books, and 2 states having no restrictions whatsoever, and three of the 9 "May-Issue" states running their CCW programs AS IF THEY WERE shall-issue, WHY THE HELL DO WE NOT JUST GO FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THE 2nd AMEND.? The time has never been as ripe as now.
Why not? Here we go...

1. We don't have the votes.
2. We don't WANT the federal government to address gun ownership in any way, shape or form. History tell us that the fed screws things up more than they help.
3. It's my firm personal belief that gun ownership, possession, and carry is a STATES' RIGHTS issue... not a federal one. Let's NOT encourage the federal government to get involved in an issue that the founders wanted to leave in the hands of the states and, particularly, INDIVIDUALS.
4. You don't amend the Constitution of the United States to "clarify" something. Amendments are intended to right wrongs, guarantee rights, etc. It's kind of a big deal. The gun lobby, while it's got some clout, doesn't have nearly the clout to get something like that done.
5. See #2 again. The fed could screw up a one-car funeral. They'd screw this up too.

If you want CCW in Illinois, the solution is simple but the task is enormous. You'd have to orchestrate the unseating of Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and then fill the majority of both houses with Chicago conservatives (replace the liberal ones) and RETAIN the downstate democrats who, year after year, are the ones to file CCW bills and gain tremendous downstate support on them. I'm talking about the political equivalent of a hostile takeover. This is a vastly quicker solution, though incredibly difficult, than is waiting for a herd of cases to make it to the Supreme Court which could slowly pick away at gun restrictions in Illinois.

See, simple. You just have to figure out how to mold the minds of the 10 million or so residents of Chicago, Cook County, and most of the suburbs.
__________________
"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; 02-21-2010 at 07:50..
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 07:42   #38
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by isp2605 View Post
You just don't understand what I and volsbear are trying to explain to you. The issue before the USSC has nothing to do with CCW nor does it have anything to do with the state of IL. You're hoping for some court response but the case at hand has nothing to do with what result you are hoping for. It makes no more sense than to think the USSC is going to force IL to allow full auto. It's just not an issue before the court. What may or may not follow McDonald is irrelevant to McDonald.
Additionally your thinking that Madigan is spending any money fighting any gun law shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process. Madigan hasn't, isn't, and doesn't have to come up with dollars to fight anything. The state of IL is not at issue in McDonald. It's about a Chicago ordinance, not anything IL has passed as law.
If you think Heller resulted in the allowance of CCW in WDC then just try it. Let us know how it works out for you. You might want to get yourself a good attorney first. You'll need it. The USSC ruling in Heller had nothing to do with CCW.
Your view of what you think the USSC is ruling on shows you're spending way too much time reading the stuff put out but some at ILCarry.com and ISRA. If the USSC rules in favor of McDonald you won't see any change in IL laws as nothing in McDonald pertains to IL law. It won't change IL anymore than it will force any other state to lessen their CCW laws. It's just not an issue before the court.
Volsbear did a very good job of explaining the process. He knows of which he speaks. Just wishing something otherwise does not make it so. You can wish all you want but facts are what you are wishing to happen is not reality.
I understand what you are saying, you are however, for some reason, completely unable to read the words that I put to post.

You state "The issue before the USSC has nothing to do with CCW nor does it have anything to do with the state of IL." I have not EVER, in any post in this thread, stated or implied that McDonald has anything to do with CCW. I have even stated emphatically to the contrary on more then several occasions now. I will not waste anymore of my time responding to your ridiculous assumption that I am some how implying the above notion of McDonald addressing CCW. The issue in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago is the constitutionality of Chicago's ban on handguns in light of the courts ruling in Heller vs. DC. The question the court chose to answer is whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States via the 14th Amendment (Due Process) or if the right to keep and bear arms is a Privilege or Immunity. Are we kosher yet?

As to my "thinking that Madigan is spending any money fighting any gun law,"which shows my "lack of understanding of the legislative process," you must not have lived in Illinois for too long. Who is paying to defend Chicago? Who paid the office of the Illinois Attorney General to research, write and file an Amicus Brief on behalf of Chicago? ...the sound of crickets... Well, it is the taxpayers of Illinois who are paying these bills. Well, actually not paying these bills...because there is not enough $$$ for Chicago or Illinois to pay bills anymore. The City of Chicago and State of Illinois, in case you have not heard, are insolvent (thats a fancy word for broke, as in can't pay the bills).

"If you think Heller resulted in the allowance of CCW in WDC then just try it. Let us know how it works out for you. You might want to get yourself a good attorney first." Did you miss the post, post #26, where I attached the filing for Palmer vs DC, a recently (post Heller) filing which deals specifically with carrying a firearm in DC for self defense. I think I will wait for the outcome of the case before I try to break a current law, thank you very much.

"Your view of what you think the USSC is ruling on shows you're spending way too much time reading the stuff put out but some at ILCarry.com and ISRA." Your lack of understanding shows your not spending enough time keeping abreast of current legal developments and precedents, nor understanding of their impacts on future challenges.

"If the USSC rules in favor of McDonald you won't see any change in IL laws as nothing in McDonald pertains to IL law. It won't change IL anymore than it will force any other state to lessen their CCW laws. It's just not an issue before the court." I clearly beg to differ. Post McDonald, incorporation Illinois ban on bearing arms will most certainly be challenged as an infringement of a Constitutionally protected right.

Do you have anything new and useful to contribute to this discussion, or are we done yet?

Last edited by 05FLHT; 02-21-2010 at 07:45..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 07:52   #39
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,160
I'm not concerned with Madigan's friend-of-the-court brief. 37 other attorney generals wrote a pro-2A brief and signed onto it. McDonald will be heard, argued, and considered outside of the scope of Illinois law. Besides, from what I've heard, the Madigan brief is akin to grasping at straws and ignores most of the most basic tenets of Constitutional foundation.
__________________
"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 02-21-2010, 07:56   #40
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
Why not? Here we go...

1. We don't have the votes.
2. We don't WANT the federal government to address gun ownership in any way, shape or form. History tell us that the fed screws things up more than they help.
3. It's my firm personal belief that gun ownership, possession, and carry is a STATES' RIGHTS issue... not a federal one. Let's NOT encourage the federal government to get involved in an issue that the founders wanted to leave in the hands of the states and, particularly, INDIVIDUALS.
4. You don't amendment the Constitution of the United States to "clarify" something. Amendments are intended to right wrongs, guarantee rights, etc. It's kind of a big deal. The gun lobby, while it's got some clout, doesn't have nearly the clout to get something like that done.
5. See #2 again. The fed could screw up a one-car funeral. They'd screw this up too.

If you want CCW in Illinois, the solution is simple but the task is enormous. You'd have to orchestrate the unseating of Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and then fill the majority of both houses with Chicago conservatives (replace the liberal ones) and RETAIN the downstate democrats who, year after year, are the ones to file CCW bills and gain tremendous downstate support on them.

See, simple. You just have to figure out how to mold the minds of the 10 million or so residents of Chicago, Cook County, and most of the suburbs.
Or option #2, succeed in a court challenge, post McDonald, showing an Illinois ban on bearing arms for self defense is unconstitutional. You have to remember, the Constitution does not give rights, it protects rights we already have. Furthermore, regulation may be a States issue, but that does not mean a State can legislate a complete ban.

This is the reason US vs. Skoien is an important precedent right now, it sets the level of scrutiny at strict for the 7th Circuit. If a challenge is filed, and is appealed to the 7th Circuit, the State will need show the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms, quite a high hurdle to overcome.
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 14:48.




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


Users Currently Online: 1,061
281 Members
780 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31