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 02-19-2010, 14:17   #26
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
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, 14:48   #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 14:29..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 15:43   #28
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
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...)
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 16:38   #29
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
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, 06:41   #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, 10:52   #31
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
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, 13:21   #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, 14:32   #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, 18:05   #34
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,892
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 19:46   #35
isp2605
Senior Member
 
isp2605's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 4,945
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, 20:25   #36
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
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.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 06:36   #37
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,892
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 06:50..
volsbear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 06:42   #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 06:45..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 06:52   #39
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,892
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 06:56   #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
Old 02-21-2010, 06:58   #41
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
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.
Yes, I have read it and agree. My point was however, that as the brief was researched, written by and filed by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, we, as Illinois taxpayers, paid for it.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 07:09   #42
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
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.
Actually, it does neither. Human rights are unalienable. They existed before the Constitution was born. The Constitution was not intended to "protect" rights or to give them. It was intended to guarantee those rights that were implicity inherent with the dawn of the human race.

And Illinois does not have a complete ban on firearms - not even close - which is why I believe the basic frame of your argument is flawed. The SCOTUS has *always* deferred to the concept "reasonable restriction" when it comes to state regulation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. McDonald, I believe, will definitely yield a decision whereby Chicago (and similar) gun bans and registration are deemed an unreasonable restriction on civil liberties. But that's IT.

There are states that do have CCW but still have greater restrictions on firearm ownership. They are allowed to do this because reasonable restrictions of Constitutionally guaranteed rights are allowed. Free speech is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but you still can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater with fear of government intervention. It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will consider any current Illinois gun law to be an unreasonable restriction on the second amendment. Why? Because no case before the Court has raised that precise, exact question.

I do agree with you that cases like Heller and McDonald will serve a small, incremental victory in the context the larger second amendment issue. That's undeniable (and happily so). But these cases will have an almost undistinguishable impact on the prospect of Illinois getting CCW - other than as what they are - extremely small, almost invisible steps on the road to liberating this state from liberals.

But I do appreciate your comments and I applaud anyone who actually puts thought into this issue. I went to I-GOLD last year and was SHOCKED... no, ASTONISHED... at how many people who couldn't understand why Heller didn't justify them carrying a concealed pistol on the lawn of the capitol building.

So at least everyone in this thread is thinking, though we don't necessarily agree on the finer points.
__________________
"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 07:12..
volsbear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 07:13   #43
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
Yes, I have read it and agree. My point was however, that as the brief was researched, written by and filed by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, we, as Illinois taxpayers, paid for it.
I know. But I don't really think that's what ISP meant when he referred 'Madigan not having to pay for it.' I believe his reference was aimed at demonstrating that it costs him nothing (be it cash or political capital) to simply not call a CCW bill for a vote.

I think, very innocently, you were both unintentionally missing each others' points
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 07:57   #44
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
Actually, it does neither. Human rights are unalienable. They existed before the Constitution was born. The Constitution was not intended to "protect" rights or to give them. It was intended to guarantee those rights that were implicity inherent with the dawn of the human race.

And Illinois does not have a complete ban on firearms - not even close - which is why I believe the basic frame of your argument is flawed. The SCOTUS has *always* deferred to the concept "reasonable restriction" when it comes to state regulation of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. McDonald, I believe, will definitely yield a decision whereby Chicago (and similar) gun bans and registration are deemed an unreasonable restriction on civil liberties. But that's IT.

There are states that do have CCW but still have greater restrictions on firearm ownership. They are allowed to do this because reasonable restrictions of Constitutionally guaranteed rights are allowed. Free speech is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but you still can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater with fear of government intervention. It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will consider any current Illinois gun law to be an unreasonable restriction on the second amendment. Why? Because no case before the Court has raised that precise, exact question.

I do agree with you that cases like Heller and McDonald will serve a small, incremental victory in the context the larger second amendment issue. That's undeniable (and happily so). But these cases will have an almost undistinguishable impact on the prospect of Illinois getting CCW - other than as what they are - extremely small, almost invisible steps on the road to liberating this state from liberals.

But I do appreciate your comments and I applaud anyone who actually puts thought into this issue. I went to I-GOLD last year and was SHOCKED... no, ASTONISHED... at how many people who couldn't understand why Heller didn't justify them carrying a concealed pistol on the lawn of the capitol building.

So at least everyone in this thread is thinking, though we don't necessarily agree on the finer points.
I agree with most of your post.

I would like to point out however, that just like free speech, there cannot be a complete ban on bearing arms. Whereas yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is banned because of it's intent to cause a panic, brandishing or intimidating with a firearm (or any weapon for that matter) can, and should be regulated. This does not mean however, that a state can regulate a "right" practically ineffective. Again, the level of scrutiny will be the crucial factor in determining the final allowable legislation of the right to keep and bear arms.

For a very good, but in depth, read of the history of cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms, you may visit the following link and find the attachment in the first post.

I will now bow out, agreeing that although we ALL may disagree on some of the finer points, that is our right to do so.

ETA attachment.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=20426

Last edited by 05FLHT; 02-21-2010 at 08:00..
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 14:11   #45
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
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 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.
I like and agree with your statement (in a different post) that the Constitution merely guarantees unalienable rights that existed before the Constitution, but the problem with that is where the rubber meets the road. Even though, I'm sure in all of our opinions, the second amendment protects our INDIVIDUAL right to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arms, there are NUMEROUS state, federal, and local laws which have been enacted and enforced (and continue to exist) which take away that right to some degree or another.

In my opinion, in an effort to be eloquent, brief, and cover multiple points (Militia definition, Sovereignty of the US, and RKBA), the wording of the second amendment has left it open to interpretation and questioning by unknowing or politically divergent people that the Second Amend. is not about an Individual Right. (Even though 25 out of the 28 points covered in the Bill of Rights, ARE about an individual right. State's Rights in the 10th Amend. & Militia and Sovereignty in the 2d Amend. are the three non-individual rights.)

05FLHT is comfortable leaving this in the hands of the Court. While I agree with his implied feeling that the Court's purpose is to correct abuse by legislature and executive, I don't like trusting the Courts, as they've become too political. I work in the Court system and there's too much authority/weight given to one man or small group of them (at Appellate or Supreme levels). Depending on the political philosophy of the Judge(s) involved, you could lose, and as we've all seen, Courts can be as political as the rest of the government. (We could debate why that should not be and that they've lost their philosophical perspective of being neutral and an independent check-and-balance, but that won't change the facts of how things are...)

Taking your points one by one:

1. (We don't have the votes.) We will in about 10 months. Not to mention that you've missed the point I was making earlier in that more than 3/4 of the states already have shall-issue or CCW friendly laws in place. We don't NEED Congress. If 3/4s of the states ratify the amendment, it's done. Screw Congress!

2. (The federal govt. always screws things up.) Well, my first response is, See my response to #1 immediately above. My second response is that we need it to be a Constitutional issue so that there is equal application of the law everywhere you go. I concede and understand your point that it's easier for us to get grass-roots changes accomplished at our own state's levels, but how do you like having 10-20 different CCW laws across the US along with some states that don't even permit it? How does that help you when you travel? And, to take your last point at this time - The intent of my post wasn't to address getting CCW in Illinois. It was to get CCW for EVERYBODY in an equally-applied way across the US, so everyone would be playing from the same sheet of music, so-to-speak.

3. (It's my personal belief that this is a State's Rights issue.) Well, first off, see my comments immediately above in response to your second point. Second, you are contradicting yourself. If RKBA is an unalienable right, it is NOT a state's rights issue, it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS issue. Those needed to be protected in the Bill of Rights, and IMO we need to redress the abuses put upon our right to self-protection that have been abused by a loosely-worded 2nd Amend. (Not to criticize the Founding Fathers; they knew what they were doing, but they relied upon [trusted] future generations to protect what they started, and that's what I'm proposing.)

4. (You don't amend the Constitution to "clarify" something.) Really? Again, you are contradicting yourself. What do you think "righting wrongs" is? It's clarifying something for someone in power who decided to do something wrong... Yes, it is "kind-of" a big deal. Do you not think restricting or taking away our right to personal self-protection as well as to keep in check a tyrannical government isn't a "Big Deal"??? If worded correctly, it could eliminate all the BS with the UN (or any other future organization's) treaty about world-wide gun control, as well as providing nationwide CCW, and reigning in the controls that the government continues to add on through the years.

5. (See #2 again.) Well, this is redundant, so no need to respond.


Seriously, I think you're not seeing the big picture. The NRA, especially through their eloquent spokesman Wayne LaPierre, and the tremendous grass-roots groundswell, and other pro-gun organizations, (GOA, JFP2A, etc.) have really accomplished a lot (considering the way things went from 1968 through 1994), and I feel this change that has been accomplished has also given us data (success of CCW) and sentiment of more and more people to be more pro-gun along with pro-conservative (Tea parties, etc.) making the next few years the optimum time to get something meaningful, long-term, and supremely powerful (Const. Amend. level) that will protect our rights in regards to gun ownership.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 15:00   #46
rwk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15
I have read all these threads

This is how I see it, and I live in IL

1. Stay out of Chicago

2. MakeMineA10 says your console must be locked. I have tried to confirm this and can't. If true its this and the glove box is only kind of carry that would need to be locked

3. I do not want to transport with out a case anyway. My console moves up and down. So I dont want it moving around with out a case

So I will use http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51

I put the mag in the top of the Safepacker not as shown in there pictures
It is a separate compartment

This will cover the conservation law

It can also be used as a fannypack carry or on a shoulder strap
__________________
LOYALTY ABOVE ALL ELSE, EXCEPT HONOR

Last edited by rwk; 02-21-2010 at 15:04..
rwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 19:27   #47
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwk View Post
I have read all these threads

So I will use http://store.thewilderness.com/index.php?cPath=51

I put the mag in the top of the Safepacker not as shown in there pictures
It is a separate compartment

This will cover the conservation law
Conservation Law, in essence, requires the gun be:
1) unloaded
2) in a case
3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat

Your safepacker in the console will cover you, but if you go back to the first page, you'll note ISP and I both pointed out that you'll still be subject to violation of the Conservation Code, which is a MUCH LESSOR offense than UUW, but still arrestable, AND they can seize your gun...

I'll try and find the original wording of the Sup. Crt. so you can see what they said. As I recall, the wording about it being locked was in their research about defining what a "case" is.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 20:13   #48
MakeMineA10mm
Lifetime Membership
300AAC brass
 
MakeMineA10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 7,854
Blog Entries: 13
OK, Just for you guys, I've done some homework!

Here is the link to the published opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court on this case (State of Illinois vs. Diggins, Docket No. 106367):
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ber/106367.pdf

It's 8-pages and gets into some legal wording, but the jest of this is that I'm not sure I was right about the console being locked. Diggins ASSERTED that the console was locked, and became unlocked and ajar subsequent to the officer asking him for his license, and Diggins asking his passenger to get the keys to the console and unlock it. At that point in time, Diggins realized it might not be smart to reach inside there when there are guns in it, so he told the officer of the presence of the guns. The officer then cuffed Diggins and his passenger, and found the console's lid "ajar." (Presumably the passenger unlocked it and started to open it, if you believe the defendant's story.)

The Supreme Court's long discussion of what defines a case never mentioned whether it be locked or not, and in fact, they used Webster's dictionary to determine the "common definition" of a case and none of the examples used in their published opinion do in fact lock... It is interesting in the last paragraph or two of the opinion that the Sup. Crt. referred the case back to local circuit for trying, as there was still room to seek a conviction based on the argument of whether the guns were ENCLOSED by the center console. (In other words, did the jury believe the officer that the console was ajar, or did they believe Diggins and his witness - the passenger - that it was locked until the officer asked for ID.) Still, the extensive mention of Diggins' argument at trial that he had previously had the console locked implies to me that the Supreme Court would have taken that into consideration as well in cementing the case for Diggins.

Just in case there are any more doubting Thomas' out there, I also found another source, which is an instructional paper written for updating Law Enforcement Officers about case law changes/affects on enforcement. It is published at the Police Training Institute's website (PTI) at the University of Illinois. PTI is one of 6-8 training academies throughout Illinois which train and certify police officers. Their 2-page summary can be found here:
http://www.pti.uiuc.edu/resources/do...se-Diggins.doc

I happen to work in the Judicial System in the Circuit where this case came from, and I know the original trial Judge who failed to give the defense an opportunity to define "case" for the jury, and then told the Jury when they came back with a question during deliberations that the console is not a case. Now, he's a fairly popular Judge (if you're pro-law-and-order) and I'd say that I like him and prefer him to other Judges in our circuit (since I'm a law-and-order kind of guy), but you can see how even a "good" Judge cannot be trusted 100% with making interpretations/rulings on things about our rights. This particular Judge, just like most of the police officers I work with, because of the long-standing oppressive gun laws in this state, believe that this state of affairs (that the presence of a gun anywhere in a car) is normal and acceptable, rather than Big Brother gone too far...

It's through my 20 years of experience in Law Enforcement and 10+ years involvement in the Courts, including the one that this case came out of, that I'd say IN MY OPINION, because we're fighting this uphill battle, the smartest way you can go is to keep the gun locked in a device that unquestionably secures it. I like this:
Illinois Glockers' Club

Cutaway view showing out it works (functioning unit is completely enclosed in 16-ga. steel)
Illinois Glockers' Club

Now, if you don't want to do this, or keep the gun in a locked center console or a locked glove compartment, then make sure you understand you're volunteering to be a test case. The Supreme Court said that if the console was "ajar" (or even if it wasn't), the originating Circuit could take the case back to trial to determine if the console "enclosed" the weapon as required in the UUW statute. IN MY OPINION, by having it in a locked compartment or device, such as that shown above, you'll have a MUCH better defense (to the point that the State's Atty. may not want to bother with the case). If not, you can be our test case, and I hope you 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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 20:25   #49
05FLHT
Senior Member
 
05FLHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMineA10mm View Post
Conservation Law, in essence, requires the gun be:
1) unloaded
2) in a case
3) inaccessible from the passenger compartment/driver's seat

Your safepacker in the console will cover you, but if you go back to the first page, you'll note ISP and I both pointed out that you'll still be subject to violation of the Conservation Code, which is a MUCH LESSOR offense than UUW, but still arrestable, AND they can seize your gun...

I'll try and find the original wording of the Sup. Crt. so you can see what they said. As I recall, the wording about it being locked was in their research about defining what a "case" is.
The only additional requirement of the Wildlife Code is that the case must be designed to house a firearm. This would exclude a center console.

I would not personally transport an unloaded firearm in a center console. Unloaded and enclosed in a case designed to house a firearm is the only way to be compliant with the letter of the law (both UUW and WC), although this is no guarantee that you will encounter an IL LEO who understand this.
05FLHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 20:27   #50
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by 05FLHT View Post
The only additional requirement of the Wildlife Code is that the case must be designed to house a firearm. This would exclude a center console.
A factory console... maybe. There are companies out there who sell equipment that modifies a factory console into a gun safe. That would create an interesting twist in a courtroom.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,023
308 Members
715 Guests

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