IL UUW Ruled unconstitutional


PDA






ilbob
December 11, 2012, 12:27 PM
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0NZGVK.pdf

The court gave IL 180 days to deal with it.

If you enjoyed reading about "IL UUW Ruled unconstitutional" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
C0untZer0
December 11, 2012, 12:36 PM
Now all we need is SCOTUS to refuse to hear it.

ilbob
December 11, 2012, 12:43 PM
Now all we need is SCOTUS to refuse to hear it.
What we need more than anything else is "our" side not to give the whole gift away for nothing in return.

TyGuy
December 11, 2012, 12:58 PM
I know that some states basically have a ban on carrying firerarms, but technically Illinois was the lone state with a total legal ban. That has come to an end as of today.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois' ban on carrying firearms outside of the home today. They granted a 180 day stay to allow the legislature to pass something.

I hope that we get a good shall issue system in place, but today was a HUGE step forward for us in Illinois.

Link to the oral arguments (MP3) and the decision released this morning (pdf - see the last paragraph on page 20 for the summation)

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=12-1269&submit=showdkt&yr=12&num=1269

Kingcreek
December 11, 2012, 01:03 PM
Amen!

ilbob
December 11, 2012, 01:16 PM
The link is now dead. Wonder what that means.

C0untZer0
December 11, 2012, 01:17 PM
There still is a pro-gun majority in the Illinois house, when the antis propose some BS bill, we can just tell them to shove it - we'll wait 180 days for constitutional carry

ilbob
December 11, 2012, 01:35 PM
There still is a pro-gun majority in the Illinois house, when the antis propose some BS bill, we can just tell them to shove it - we'll wait 180 days for constitutional carry
I think that is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.

We need to get complete state preemption out of this.

There are a LOT of prohibited areas that could be considered to extend to such things as TIF districts in current law.

Better to clean up the mishmash of the existing laws while we have the chance.

TyGuy
December 11, 2012, 01:37 PM
The link was getting swamped, but it's back up now.

Madcap_Magician
December 11, 2012, 01:44 PM
Link broken.

bhesler
December 11, 2012, 01:46 PM
First, congratulations to the citizens of Illinois.

Regardless of how Illinois irons out the details of carry outside the home, the issue will still have to be reviewed by the Supreme court. We now have a split with the Second ruling it does not apply outside the home, and the Seventh saying it does. More importantly, in the Kachalsky case, they ruled that good cause can be used to severely limit issuance of permits. With similar cases in NJ, MD, CA and HI, this is still very important.

Madcap_Magician
December 11, 2012, 01:54 PM
Found it.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=12-1269&submit=showdkt

JohnPierce
December 11, 2012, 01:57 PM
In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

The opinion is a joy to read as Judge Posner proceeds to shred the historical and public policy arguments against carry put forward by Illinois.

Here are some examples to warm your heart on this cold December afternoon:

Excerpt ... Read more at http://monachuslex.com/?p=2254

MisterMike
December 11, 2012, 02:04 PM
As an Illinoisan (albeit one who's permitted to carry under LEOSA), this is a tremendous step in the right direction. However, I do not believe that the fight is anywhere close to being over. What will undoubtedly happen is that the anti-rights crowd will attempt to heap on so many restrictions as to make the right to carry unrecognizable, a la Washington, D.C.

Nonetheless, there is a strong pro-2A sentiment in Illinois (though it's been largely stifled by a legislature heavily influenced by Chicago Machine politics) and there's some chance that the move toward concealed carry rights will actually result in something of substance . . . finally.

Still, I think that a long road lies ahead of us.

JellyJar
December 11, 2012, 02:06 PM
Merry Christmas Illinois!!

Kingcreek
December 11, 2012, 02:25 PM
There is a difference now in Illinois politics, even Chicago democrats. There are more and more urban Chicago democrats, especially in the crime ridden gang neighborhoods, that support concealed carry. This is new and they are bucking the traditional party machine. I attended IGOLD in march and there were more urban black women and men than years past.
This is reason to celebrate but I have to wait until tonight!

galapoola
December 11, 2012, 03:12 PM
IL legislators may offer up a "shall issue" scheme like we have in NJ which places a "justifiable need" clause in the application. That would be consistent with the dicta of the opinion when it referenced the Kachalsky v. Cacace case in NY. If that's what you get and the court of appeals is OK with it, IL unfortunately remains an outlier to free America. SCOTUS will have to put an end to all this nonsense. So long as the 5 who gave us Heller & McDonald hang in there, we should have "to bear" in all 50 states.

brickeyee
December 11, 2012, 03:14 PM
They are already schemcing to makwe it as diffuclt as poissible to get licensed.

“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.” from the Tribune story.

Scimmia
December 11, 2012, 03:19 PM
I think everyone expects that, brickeyee. It will then come down to how Woollard vs Sheridan comes out. If they strike down may issue there, this could get interesting.

Spats McGee
December 11, 2012, 04:30 PM
They are already schemcing to makwe it as diffuclt as poissible to get licensed.
“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.”

from the Tribune story.
The Facepalm is strong in that Currie person. :facepalm:

bigfatdave
December 11, 2012, 05:18 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8562041

already under discussion in above thread
great news, how about we consolidate the discussion in one place?

EDIT:
apparently this will be the thread left open

k_dawg
December 11, 2012, 05:23 PM
Effectively this will result in a neo-ban, where only a select few are so graciated to be given permission, ala NYC.

The reaction of the Democratic Gov is no different than the Democrats in the South after slavery was banned. It took another 100 years simply to meet the original goal: an end to bigotry by the government upon the common people.

TyGuy
December 11, 2012, 05:47 PM
I don't get all the naysayers. They just overwhemlingly denied the AWB that Governor Quinn wanted. We almost passed CCW with 65 of the needed 71 votes (only 48 were Republicans). So, why exactly do you think the pendulum is going to swing to a may issue horror? The momentum is on our side by ALL accounts (legislatively, judicially, and with public opinion). We will get shall issue, or possible FOID (Constitutional) Carry.

Scimmia
December 11, 2012, 07:06 PM
So, why exactly do you think the pendulum is going to swing to a may issue horror?

Because even the Republicans aren't overwhelmingly in favor of carry with just a FOID card. They WILL compromise to stop that from happening, and the leadership in the state legislature and the Governor won't let shall issue through under any circumstances.

10/22plinker
December 11, 2012, 08:25 PM
I never thought this day would come... Would I be going to far to say that Illinois seems to have been almost reasonable lately?

Trent
December 11, 2012, 08:40 PM
So, let's tally up the options here.

#1 - Madigan and friends push a horrifically restrictive bill through to the legislature. The pro-carry majority in the house tells her to stuff it.

#2 - Pro-Gun legislatures push a "shall issue" bill through the legislature. Fails again to meet supermajority.

#3 - Pro-Gun legislatures push a "shall issue" bill through the legislature, MAKES supermajority, and gets vetoed by the anti-gun Governor.

180 days pass, no law has been passed, and now.... open (constitutional) carry.

This is a win-win for us if it's deadlocked on both sides. All we need to do is convince our reps to hold tight and pass NOTHING.

What will happen in the aftermath is you will see even the most staunch of Anti-Gun representatives buckle under the pressure of a state with wide open carry, and they'll gladly and willingly pass whatever the pro-gun community presents to them just to get all those crazy guys with guns to cover them up, and end open carry.

10/22plinker
December 11, 2012, 08:47 PM
We'll still get hassled by the police--a lot. What kinds of costs would be associated with getting the proper permits?

Trent
December 11, 2012, 09:26 PM
In the event it happens to be HB148 that passes;


Each applicant for a license shall submit a $100
2 application fee, of which $25 shall be retained by the sheriff
3 for expenses related to receiving and reviewing applications,
4 and $75 shall be submitted to the Department and deposited into
5 the Citizen Safety and Self Defense Trust Fund. The sheriff may
6 require an applicant submit the fee in 2 portions: (1) $25
7 payable to the sheriff, and (2) $75 payable to the Department.

230RN
December 11, 2012, 09:28 PM
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a longtime gun control advocate, said she hoped the state would appeal the ruling. But Currie also said lawmakers must “get cracking” on how to respond to the ruling and begin parsing its key points.

Seems to me this "parsing" of "militia" and "infringed," etc., is what got us our stupid gun laws in the first place. But what do I know? I'm just an ordinary Joe who speaks English fairly well.

Terry, 230RN

Trent
December 11, 2012, 09:30 PM
(Note; I'm not particularly a fan of HB148 for various reasons.. fingerprinting, etc. Lots of baggage.)

k_dawg
December 11, 2012, 09:49 PM
Even if 'shall issue', they can set the bar very very high indeed.

Look at DC. It still is essentially a near total ban for the average person.

Phatty
December 11, 2012, 10:04 PM
As others have said, there is still a concern that anti-gun cities or counties such as Chicago and Cook County will enact licensing schemes that aren't complete bans but make it difficult if not close to impossible to carry. I'm expecting Chicago to follow D.C.'s playbook. Those new laws might also be unconstitutional, but it could take years to get to the point where a court rules that way.

One of the good things about today's 7th Circuit opinion was that it was somewhat skeptical of the 2nd Circuit's opinion that upheld NYC's "may issue" scheme where the applicant had the burden of showing a special need for self-defense. An outright statement of disagreement would have been nice, but enough was said that I am confident that if the issue reaches the 7th Circuit, they would strike down that kind of scheme.

Wishbone Ash
December 11, 2012, 11:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-6_Ej9tFnE&feature=youtu.be

spyder1911
December 12, 2012, 12:06 AM
#3 - Pro-Gun legislatures push a "shall issue" bill through the legislature, MAKES supermajority, and gets vetoed by the anti-gun Governor.

If we have enough votes to pass the bill then we have enough to override the veto.

Having said that, HB148 is out and we need to really pressure the legislature into passing a much better bill

Trent
December 12, 2012, 12:07 AM
Absolutely.

The ISRA is already calling for us to push through HB148.

We need to tell the ISRA DO NOT do that.

We have them by the short hairs.

Utilize the advantage to get something through that doesn't have several years of conciliatory junk in it.

YESTERDAY, HB148 was our best shot, the best thing going.... TODAY... well, it sucks, given the circumstances. :)

horsemen61
December 12, 2012, 12:15 AM
Bout time y'all catch up

Deus Machina
December 12, 2012, 08:44 AM
What are the betting odds that they will restrict it so far that only the politicos can carry, or that they will make it easy to get the license but even easier to violate a law and get arrested for it? Or just make it illegal for you to say anything to an officer before informing him you have a weapon? Or demanding that you carry your FOID, bill of sale, and receipt at all times, and making it legal for the police to hold the gun for three weeks under 'reasonable suspicion' while they run the serial number, then shove it into the back of a locker and then fail to return it.

I'm just saying, guys. I'm originally from Illinois, myself, and congratulate you and wish you the best of luck, but it's still an uphill battle.

Now, if they actually start laying down the law on what these lawmakers can and can't get away with, I may actually consider returning some day. I think a better atmosphere down here makes up for it being near 90 yesterday.

rodinal220
December 12, 2012, 09:27 AM
Now the real fun and games begin in Springfield,da machine has many friends and experience in this arena.

Bubba613
December 12, 2012, 09:48 AM
Anyone who thinks Illinois will get "Constitutional carry" (whatever the heck that means) is plain misguided. They will develop some scheme to make carry dependent on "need" and/or with heavy restrictions. And it will pass muster with the courts.

Warners
December 12, 2012, 10:04 AM
As a resident of Illinois, I’d like the pro-gun legislators to do NOTHING, and agree to NOTHING. In that case, we wait 6 months and have constitutional carry. Then the gun grabbers only have 2 choices (other than the default action, which is constitutional carry):

1 – Take to the case to the US Supreme Court (who in my estimation wouldn’t even HEAR the case because it has such far-reaching ramifications for ALL of the states. If they lose there, the entire COUNTRY is affected and would get constitutional carry)

OR

2 – Pass whatever law the pro-gun crowd wants (and they'd only agree to this if it were MORE restrictive than constitutional carry)

The bottom line is, Madigan and company do not have too many options at the end of the day, as long as the pro-gun people don’t fold and agree to something stupid.


PS – There are MANY Democrats that support the 2nd amendment….this is NOT a partisan issue!

JFtheGR8
December 12, 2012, 10:39 AM
Anyone who thinks Illinois will get "Constitutional carry" (whatever the heck that means) is plain misguided. They will develop some scheme to make carry dependent on "need" and/or with heavy restrictions. And it will pass muster with the courts.
Anything more restrictive than HB148 will not pass in my opinion.

Trent
December 12, 2012, 11:23 AM
Time to make your voice heard loud and clear with Vandermyde, the NRA folks, the ISRA, and your representatives. We do NOT need to pass legislation. We've got them held over a burning pit right now, let them sweat.

iGold should get off their duffs and mobilize the troops, too. We should insist on nothing less than constitutional carry; let Madigan and company take it to the supreme court if they want.

Warners
December 12, 2012, 11:25 AM
Time to make your voice heard loud and clear with Vandermyde, the NRA folks, the ISRA, and your representatives. We do NOT need to pass legislation. We've got them held over a burning pit right now, let them sweat.

iGold should get off their duffs and mobilize the troops, too. We should insist on nothing less than constitutional carry; let Madigan and company take it to the supreme court if they want.
I COMPLETELY agree. We waiting this long, what's another 6 months?

Warner

PaisteMage
December 12, 2012, 03:06 PM
As Illinois is the place of my birth this is great news.
I no longer live there but always wondered what was the problem of defending ones self was with the lawmakers.

I know many people who still live there, that are now very happy!

Trent
December 12, 2012, 03:08 PM
Oh I want to buy this guy a beer.

The sponsor of HB141 (State Rep. Brandon Phelps, Democrat), was quoted yesterday in this article:

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/illinois-concealed-carry-ban_n_2284381.html)


State Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored a restrictive concealed carry bill last year that lost by the slimmest of margins, said gun control advocates are not going to like the next bill they see on the floor of the General Assembly.

"I said on the floor (last year), `A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling,'" said Phelps, a Democrat. "Today's the day."


ISRA is also pushing now for a more "open" version:


One provision in Phelps' bill that might be taken out is a requirement for concealed-carry training specific to Illinois residents, Pearson said. That requirement is far more rigorous than in some other states, including Arizona and Wyoming, which Pearson said have far less stringent training requirements.

wtr100
December 12, 2012, 03:11 PM
If we have enough votes to pass the bill then we have enough to override the veto.

Having said that, HB148 is out and we need to really pressure the legislature into passing a much better bill
I saw ISRA's maximum leader saying we 'bent over backwards' with HB148, maybe we won't be so accomdating this time ...

Trent
December 12, 2012, 03:16 PM
Well, yeah. But Pearson also posted up on Facebook yesterday on the ISRA's page urging lawmakers to push through HB148 as quickly as possible.

Can't have it both ways.

We're at a point, suddenly, where he needs to stand strong, instead of waving around vague and pointless threats about "maybe we won't be"...

I've never really liked the ISRA, for various personal reasons. However, this is exemplary of the lack of solid leadership Pearson has offered. Over the years he's gotten far too .. "conciliatory." I mean we just got handed the ruling of a lifetime; state UUW got shot down, and this is the best he can do?

At least Vandermyde is tracking properly. His statements have left no question that WE are dictating terms now.

Pearson.. bleh.

Deus Machina
December 12, 2012, 04:16 PM
Ummm, constitutional carry? I think that's far too optimistic.

At the least, I didn't hear that they abolished the FOID card scheme, and that would be a pretty good way to carry compared to anything else the state will come up with, but there is no way any judge in the area will go straight from a total ban on it to allowing anyone that can own a gun carry it unquestioned.

Even the right-to-own cases never ruled out what the judges termed 'reasonable restriction,' in Chicago or DC or anywhere else I'm aware of. There's not a single judge around Illinois that will risk his reputation with his peers and politicians by openly casting his vote for "Yeah, we don't need any apparent control over this at all."

Trent
December 12, 2012, 04:26 PM
Unless I'm mistaken...

In 180 days unlawful use of a weapon code is abolished; new legislation will have to be crafted which replaces it between now and then.

If they do NOT pass something...

That leaves FOID standing.

Not *quite* constitutional carry but good enough.

I'm hoping they fight, but do nothing, fight some more, still do nothing, and fight some more while still doing nothing. :)

rodregier
December 12, 2012, 04:27 PM
Anyone care to bet the mainstream media will be predicting mayhem in the streets for IL by lawful gunowners if the SCOTUS decision is allowed to stand unimpeeded, despite it not happening in the other "n" states that now have CCW of one kind or another?

Sort of like taking odds on the sun rising...

Warners
December 12, 2012, 04:29 PM
Unless I'm mistaken...

In 180 days unlawful use of a weapon code is abolished; new legislation will have to be crafted which replaces it between now and then.

If they do NOT pass something...

That leaves FOID standing.

Not *quite* constitutional carry but good enough.

I'm hoping they fight, but do nothing, fight some more, still do nothing, and fight some more while still doing nothing. :)
Trent, you and I are on EXACTLY the same page. :)

Warner

Warners
December 12, 2012, 04:30 PM
Anyone care to bet the mainstream media will be predicting mayhem in the streets for IL by lawful gunowners if the SCOTUS decision is allowed to stand unimpeeded, despite it not happening in the other "n" states that now have CCW of one kind or another?

Sort of like taking odds on the sun rising...
Oh, of course. That goes without saying. I bet they DON'T report how the violent crime rate DROPS after implementing CCW.

Warner

Trent
December 12, 2012, 04:37 PM
Posted this morning on ISRA facebook comments;


Illinois State Rifle Association: We will be pushing for "Shall Issue", not may issue.

Illinois State Rifle Association: We are in the best possible position. Lets allow the lobbyist to do their work. They will not let us down.


And I've been riling up the masses;


Travis xxxxxxx 1) I agree completely with Trent. DO NOT CALL YOUR LEGISLATOR AND TELL THEM TO PUSH HB148 THROUGH!!! Rep. Brandon Phelps, who wrote HB148, has already said that compromise is going out the window now and the anti-gun democrats should have passed his bill when they had the chance, because now they're going to be sorry they didn't. 2) I had the exact same idea, Tony... we've already got FOID cards, and the form is nearly identical to a CCL application. I say mandate some remedial education/marksmanship training course and FOID is now CCL.


See, that's the smartest thing I've read all day.

"I agree completely with Trent".

Hehehe :)

Phatty
December 12, 2012, 04:42 PM
I re-reviewed HB148 today to refresh my memory on the various conditions and limitations contained in it. What once seemed palatable when it was "better than nothing" and our only hope of concealed carry, now seems ridiculously burdensome and unreasonable.

Here's just a partial list of the problems in the current bill:

* It's limited to handguns only. People should have the right to carry other weapons as well, such as a knife. Doesn't make sense that it should be illegal for a person to choose a less lethal alternative.

* It purports to be a "shall issue" statute, but there are provisions in the bill that seem to convert the "shall issue" nature of the bill into a "may issue." For instance, in Section 20(e), it states that "Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Department may consider any objection or recommendation made by the sheriff and may determine the applicant is ineligible based solely on those objections." In other words, even if an applicant satisfies all of the statutory prerequisites, the application can still be denied if their local sheriff objects.

* I don't like the co-existance of FOID and a concealed carry bill, because they are largely duplicative. You go through the whole background check and application process to get a FOID card, and then you have to be put through the same wringer again to get a CC license. The entire gun scheme in Illinois needs to be harmonized. In my own opinion, having a FOID card should be completely sufficient to be allowed to carry. But that probably isn't going to happen, so instead, how about having FOID cards that indicate somewhere on the card whether the holder is allowed to concealed carry in public.

* Cut out the whole Sheriff layer of the application process. The FOID application process takes way too long with just the State Police to deal with. Adding in the Sheriff's office will only further delay the process and it is completely unnecessary and drives up the cost and administrative hassle.

* The $100 application fee is way too high. It should cost $10 at most. The right to carry is a fundamental, constitutional right -- not simply a privilege like a driver's license. Similarly, a $50 renewal fee is ridiculous.

* The license only lasts 5 years. Why does a FOID card last 10 years but a CC license only lasts 5 years? Makes no sense. Should last for 10 years at least, especially if there are going to be excessive fees.

* One of the requirements for getting the license is that the applicant not have a misdemeanor in the past 10 years involving the use, possession or distribution of a controlled substance or cannabis. This goes too far. A simple possession of pot misdemeanor should not disqualify a person from holding a license for the next 10 years.

* The bill requires an applicant to sign a "waiver of privacy and confidentiality rights and privileges enjoyed by the applicant under all federal and State laws, including those governing access to juvenile court, criminal justice, psychological or psychiatric records, or records relating to the applicant's history of institutionalization, and an affirmative request that any person having custody of any such record provide it or information concerning it to the Department." This is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to sign away your constitutional right to privacy to excercise a different constitutional right.

* Have to submit a full set of fingerprints with the application. Of course, this increases the cost of application by up to another $25 on top of the $100 fee and whatever it costs for the training and education classes.

* The Department has to establish a searchable database available to a whole host of people containing just about every private piece of information existing about every applicant, including everything contained in the applications. This is totally overboard. At most, the Department should be allowed to keep a list of current license holders, and if local law enforcement or a judge wants to know if a person is licensed they should submit a request for that information with justification for why they need to know. This is another example of the State trying to get people to give up all their privacy rights in exchange for the right to carry. No way.

* A license holder is required to report a change of address within 30 days and must report a lost or stolen license within 30 days.

* Speaking of change of address, if a license holder changes their address, they have to pay another $25 fee and issue all sorts of new information including a new photograph just to get a new card with the new address on it.

* If the license is lost or stolen, a person has to get a police report in order to get a new license.

* The list of places where you can't carry is way too broad.

* You cannot carry in "any establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises if less than 50% of its annual gross income comes from the sale of food." How the hell is a person supposed to know the annual gross incomes of an establishment? There are tons of bars/restaurants where patrons won't be able to figure this out. The prohibited locations are supposed to put up a sign saying that guns aren't allowed, but if they fail to put up the sign, it doesn't excuse you from breaking the law by carrying a gun in that location.

* The bill requires a license holder to "immediately disclose" to a police officer if they are carrying a firearm. Failure to do this is a Class B Misdemeanor. I don't mind the separate provision that requires license holders to inform police officers when asked, but an "immediate disclosure" law is just a trap to ensare innocent victims. It seems to me that such immediate disclosure would simply spook an officer. If an officer stopped a car for a simple speeding ticket and the officer approached the driver who immediately shouts, "I've got a gun!" that would be unsettling.

* The training/education requirements are too excessive.

So, if our legislators want to pass HB148 they need to do a ton of editing.

Edit: Just saw the more recent posts about the FOID card playing the role of a concealed carry license. This is exactly right. FOID card holders have already been screened as responsible citizens permitted to own guns, so what's the big deal about letting those same citizens walk out their front door now?

Trent
December 12, 2012, 04:45 PM
What ISRA is failing to realize here... is this.

AT THE MOMENT, ANYTHING SHORT OF FOID = RIGHT TO CARRY IS A CONCESSION.

MURDER will still be ILLEGAL.

ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON will still be ILLEGAL.

*100% of all violent crimes you can commit with a firearm WILL STILL BE ILLEGAL.*

There is absolutely NO reason to pass ANY legislation because all gun crime is still covered by existing laws.

Let UUW die, and leave it at that.

Trent
December 12, 2012, 04:53 PM
If Unlawful Use of Weapons is struck down in it's entirety as unconstitutional, and no legislation is passed to replace it... there's no more machinegun ban in IL.

... Right?

bigfatdave
December 12, 2012, 04:54 PM
Let it go back to the second amendment

Screw any congressthing that wants new laws to replace the old laws

Phatty
December 12, 2012, 05:04 PM
I've seen a lot of comments about what happens if legislators don't do anything in the next 180 days. One aspect of non-action that has not been discussed is the fact that home-rule municipalities and counties are free to enact their own regulatory scheme concerning the carrying of firearms in public. Yes, those schemes might exceed the bounds of the Constitution, but it would take years to get to the stage where they are tossed out.

My point is that even if the General Assembly doesn't act, I'm sure that Chicago and other anti-gun locations would enact their own regulatory schemes. As for my own selfish interests, it won't affect me because I live in a pro-gun town and travel to Cook County maybe once a year. But there are numerous people who I am sure are hoping that the GA can get a bill passed in the next 180 days that has statewide preemption so that they aren't stuck with the crazy anti-gun regulations that their local politicians would come up with. Also, people have argued here before about the unsatisfactory nature of having a patchwork quilt of carrying laws across the state, where a traveler would never know for sure if he is in compliance with the laws of the particular location he finds himself.

I agree that we are in a position of great leverage right now. But, not as much as some of you seem to be implying. The extreme anti-gun politicians in Chicago and some of the suburbs care about their own geographic area 99% and downstate 1%. If you tell a Chicago democrat, "screw you, if you don't agree to our proposal we just won't pass anything," he doesn't really have to worry about unlimited carrying on the streets of Chicago because Chicago would be free to pass its own laws. Push too hard and the anti-gun crowd will simply say, "fine, downstate can carry their guns however they want but Cook County will pass our own regulations."

Phatty
December 12, 2012, 05:07 PM
If Unlawful Use of Weapons is struck down in it's entirety as unconstitutional, and no legislation is passed to replace it... there's no more machinegun ban in IL.

... Right?
The UUW statute is not being struck down in its entirety. Just the provision that prevents people from carrying a weapon in public places.

bigfatdave
December 12, 2012, 05:13 PM
then let a patchwork of local laws get struck down as unconstitutional, expensively and embarrassingly


eventually the congressthings and alderthings will get the message

harrygunner
December 12, 2012, 05:59 PM
In reference to the Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) quote in the Tribune posted above,

“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.”

In these two sentences, the word 'control' appears three times with 'constrained' thrown in for measure.

Could "control" be what oppressive gun laws are about? :what: :)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story

ilbob
December 12, 2012, 07:13 PM
As a resident of Illinois, I’d like the pro-gun legislators to do NOTHING, and agree to NOTHING. In that case, we wait 6 months and have constitutional carry. Then the gun grabbers only have 2 choices (other than the default action, which is constitutional carry):

1 – Take to the case to the US Supreme Court (who in my estimation wouldn’t even HEAR the case because it has such far-reaching ramifications for ALL of the states. If they lose there, the entire COUNTRY is affected and would get constitutional carry)

I think if they appeal it to SCOTUS the case gets heard because there is something close to a circuit split. There is no downside to appealing it for the IL crowd. Given the circuit split the NY case will get heard even if IL does not appeal this one. if they don't appel it in 180 days they are totally screwed. If they do appeal it, they at least get a chance at an extension of the 180 days.

OR

2 – Pass whatever law the pro-gun crowd wants (and they'd only agree to this if it were MORE restrictive than constitutional carry)

What makes you think the so called pro-gun crowd is in favor of constitutional carry? The NRA is in the driver's seat here and nothing I have ever seen out of them tells me they would even consider it. The NRA lobbyist has already publicly said they will be trying for a highly restrictive law like FL.

The bottom line is, Madigan and company do not have too many options at the end of the day, as long as the pro-gun people don’t fold and agree to something stupid.


PS – There are MANY Democrats that support the 2nd amendment….this is NOT a partisan issue!

Keep in mind that if we use this once in a lifetime chance to get most of what we ultimately really want, and I think it is possible, what do we need the NRA for down the road? The NRA is not stupid and is not going to put itself out of business.

Trent
December 12, 2012, 08:00 PM
Keep in mind that if we use this once in a lifetime chance to get most of what we ultimately really want, and I think it is possible, what do we need the NRA for down the road? The NRA is not stupid and is not going to put itself out of business.

Take a step back through time...

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247

They've always had our back... right?

Trent
December 12, 2012, 08:15 PM
I've seen a lot of comments about what happens if legislators don't do anything in the next 180 days. One aspect of non-action that has not been discussed is the fact that home-rule municipalities and counties are free to enact their own regulatory scheme concerning the carrying of firearms in public. Yes, those schemes might exceed the bounds of the Constitution, but it would take years to get to the stage where they are tossed out.

My point is that even if the General Assembly doesn't act, I'm sure that Chicago and other anti-gun locations would enact their own regulatory schemes. As for my own selfish interests, it won't affect me because I live in a pro-gun town and travel to Cook County maybe once a year. But there are numerous people who I am sure are hoping that the GA can get a bill passed in the next 180 days that has statewide preemption so that they aren't stuck with the crazy anti-gun regulations that their local politicians would come up with. Also, people have argued here before about the unsatisfactory nature of having a patchwork quilt of carrying laws across the state, where a traveler would never know for sure if he is in compliance with the laws of the particular location he finds himself.

I agree that we are in a position of great leverage right now. But, not as much as some of you seem to be implying. The extreme anti-gun politicians in Chicago and some of the suburbs care about their own geographic area 99% and downstate 1%. If you tell a Chicago democrat, "screw you, if you don't agree to our proposal we just won't pass anything," he doesn't really have to worry about unlimited carrying on the streets of Chicago because Chicago would be free to pass its own laws. Push too hard and the anti-gun crowd will simply say, "fine, downstate can carry their guns however they want but Cook County will pass our own regulations."

You mean city ordinances (and county).

So if I get busted carrying a firearm in Chicago I get a fine, can challenge it, and win when it goes to court because there's a federal precedent.

I'm cool with that.

Heck, that's a lot better than a felony, which it currently is.

If it was just ordinances and fines right now, I'd carry all the time and just pay the city/county fine when I get pulled over. (Which, I haven't been pulled over for a traffic stop in 12 years, but that's neither here nor there.)

Trent
December 12, 2012, 08:19 PM
Source, IL Constitution:


(d) A home rule unit does not have the power (1) to
incur debt payable from ad valorem property tax receipts
maturing more than 40 years from the time it is incurred or
(2) to define and provide for the punishment of a felony.

Midwest
December 12, 2012, 08:30 PM
Take a step back through time...

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247

They've always had our back... right?
As someone who studies the history of gun control laws, I appreciate that link you gave.


""The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."

—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

Trent
December 12, 2012, 08:44 PM
Midwest, yeah there's a lot about the NRA that I really don't like. Including their actions in THIS state.

In case anyone is wondering, yes, I'm a "life member."

I feel that gives me the right to criticize them whenever they do something I don't like and point out the past mistakes.

If you don't learn from history... (and get reminded from time to time)... you're bound to repeat it!

Midwest
December 12, 2012, 09:05 PM
Trent , I didn't want to derail the thread. But history is important, because we need to know how things got to be the way they are in order to prevent them from reoccurring again. One of the people that was helping Dodd with the 1968 GCA was a NJ Attorney General named Arthur Sills.

I know this for a fact as I was looking over the minutes for the hearing for a 1966 Firearms ID Card Law in NJ. Someday I'd like to publish the hearings here or at the New Jersey gun forums. It is a fantastic insight of the mind of an anti gunner hell bent (in my opinion) on restricting law abiding gun owners .

Sills bragged about helping Dodd with ideas for 'the upcoming gun legislation' now known as '1968 GCA'. OK, so what does some (now obscure) Attorney General from NJ have anything to do with Illinois? Read On....

Sills was also the main player in pushing through passage of New Jersey's FID card law in 1966. Anyway as I understand it from research, Illinois got their inspiration for the FOID card from New Jersey's FID card law (which Sills worked on). As I understand it, Illinois instituted their own firearms card ID law in 1968, just two years after New Jersey did theirs.

So now you have a piece of history that few know about and might answer some questions on why Illinois and New Jersey are among the most restrictive for gun rights.

Phatty
December 12, 2012, 09:20 PM
Heck, that's a lot better than a felony, which it currently is.

If it was just ordinances and fines right now, I'd carry all the time and just pay the city/county fine when I get pulled over. (Which, I haven't been pulled over for a traffic stop in 12 years, but that's neither here nor there.)
They can put you in the Cook County jail for up to one year, and you do not want to be there for one day.

lilguy
December 12, 2012, 09:32 PM
We are still in the wilderness, the crime family running Illinois will stop at nothing to strangle this. Don't get your hopes up.

Trent
December 12, 2012, 09:41 PM
They can put you in the Cook County jail for up to one year, and you do not want to be there for one day.

Well, there is that. :(


Also, that was an excellent synopsis of HB148 you posted earlier.

Thanks for taking the time to compile that. I didn't even notice a couple of those issues when I read through it.

MAN they made a lot of concessions.

denton
December 12, 2012, 10:19 PM
As soon as the 180 days have elapsed, no political entity within the 7th Circuit's area may have or enforce a law that is not compliant with Judge Posner's ruling.

The chances of SCOTUS taking an appeal are slim. SCOTUS takes only about 2% of the requested cases. They may have more interest in this one because of the subject matter, and because Posner is well regarded. But I think it is a safe bet that the chances of an appeal being accepted are below 10%.

So the odds strongly favor this continuing to be the law of the land within the 7th Circuit, unless another Circuit makes a conflicting ruling. In that case, SCOTUS would most likely accept an appeal.

Posner's ruling puts the pro-2A legislators in a powerful position. The antis have a choice between something they hate and something they loathe and detest.

Given the ruling, I expect another suit in fairly short order, challenging the FOID card. Posner is pretty clear: Keeping and bearing arms, inside and outside the home, is a fundamental, protected right. Requiring government permission to exercise a fundamental, protected right is a big no-no.

Phatty
December 12, 2012, 10:36 PM
denton,

The 2nd Circuit issued an opinion a few weeks ago that is inconsistent with the 7th Circuit's opinion, so there is somewhat of a split right now. That greatly increases the possibility of the Supreme Court taking the case. Also the court is more likely to accept an appeal where the government lost in the lower court and is challenging the ruling.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any chance of a court tossing out the FOID card act. Keep in mind that since Heller was decided the few pro-gun wins in court have usually only involved total bans. The vast majority of cases have upheld a whole host of gun regulations.

fehhkk
December 12, 2012, 10:44 PM
One thing that makes an appeal extremely hard to win for Lisa Madigan, is that they already had their opportunity to prove that their CCW ban increased public safety and reduced crime, of course, they couldn't prove that. So an appeal is really pointless.

The Governor made an announcement that they still want to push for an AWB while passing the concealed carry bill, so we know that's not going to happen either.

Regardless, we in IL win regardless.

bushmaster1313
December 12, 2012, 11:05 PM
Why not just pass a bill honoring Florida concealed weapon permits?:D

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any chance of a court tossing out the FOID card act.

I agree.

Think marriage license and voter registration.
These put "restrictions" on Constitutional rights, but are are still Constitutional.

bushmaster1313
December 13, 2012, 12:10 AM
Last sentence of the dissent in Illinois RTKBA case:

In the absence of clearer indication that the Second Amendment codified a generally recognized right to carry arms in public for self defense, I would leave this judgment in the hands of the State of Illinois.

From the Second Amendment:

the right of the people to . . . bear arms shall not be infringed.

Did I hear someone say: "Duh?"

Trent
December 13, 2012, 04:20 PM
I think ISRA is really "jumping the gun" here.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/illinois-state-rifle-association-offers-concealed-carry-advice-to-illinois-citizens-183329771.html


Possession of a valid Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card will be a requirement for all concealed carry permit applicants.


Uhh... really? Do we KNOW what the concealed carry application process will entail yet, or even if there will BE a concealed carry process to follow?

No.


Firearms suitable for concealed carry will soon be in short supply, as will holsters and other accessories.


Extremely doubtful.


The ISRA recommends that persons contemplating applying for a carry permit seek out a qualified instructor who will help them hone their skills – especially with the firearm(s) they plan to use for concealed carry purposes.


We don't yet know what the training requirements will be, what is required by the instructors. If someone pays for and takes a training class today, and the CCW process ends up requiring a certificate or other procedural junk, the people will have to RE take the test.

(not that I'm against training, far from it, but it seems presumptuous to think that any training class offered today would be valid when CCW gets sorted out here.)


Practice…practice…practice. As little as an hour per week of pistol practice will help ensure that the concealed carry permit holder is adequately prepared to deploy a firearm to defend themselves or their family.


No argument here. :)

Phatty
December 13, 2012, 04:46 PM
I agree Trent. The advice to rush out and buy your carry gear now is also problematic. There's no telling what kind of possible restrictions will be placed on the handguns that people are allowed to carry. Although doubtful (and I really hope not) Illinois could theoretically enact a law like D.C.'s with a list of approved weapons or features. Somebody buying a handgun now for the purpose of carrying in the future could be sorely disappointed when they discover later that it is not a permitted weapon.

Whenever a law is eventually passed, there will be a fairly long delay before it is effective (mostly to give the applicable state agencies time to prepare for it), and that is the time when there is some certainty for the ISRA to start issuing releases like this. Although I don't think it will happen, there is also a chance that the Supreme Court could accept an appeal and stay the 7th Circuit's order until the conclusion of the Supreme Court case.

Iramo94
December 14, 2012, 02:34 AM
If Unlawful Use of Weapons is struck down in it's entirety as unconstitutional, and no legislation is passed to replace it... there's no more machinegun ban in IL.

... Right?

Time to drain the kid's college fund.

NukemJim
December 14, 2012, 07:37 AM
"there's no more machinegun ban in IL.

... Right?"

My understanding is "wrong", that the ban an NFA goodies (Full auto, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns) will still be in full effect.

As always I could be wrong.

NukemJim

Trent
December 14, 2012, 12:08 PM
The reason I was asking is UUW contains the code about possession of machineguns.

Does anyone actually KNOW what the court ordered? I can't find their actual INSTRUCTIONS that were supposedly sent to the state.

(They could have struck it down by Public Act #, or by reference to the specific lines of law, or...?)

If they struck it down by Public Act #, then it's probable that the machinegun ban goes with the rest. Problem is, I cannot FIND the original public act # that created Unlawful Use of a Weapon in the first place, to know if it was grouped in. (Stuff passed before the birth of the Internet isn't in the legislature database, meaning I'd have to dig up and dust off old law books).

Worth noting, Legislative intent on the grouping of firearms is spelled out in 720 ILCS 5/33A-1. It groups machineguns with normal firearms small enough to be concealed on the person as "category 1" dangerous weapons.


(1) "Armed with a dangerous weapon". A person is considered armed with a dangerous weapon for purposes of this Article, when he or she carries on or about his or her person or is otherwise armed with a Category I, Category II, or Category III weapon.

A Category I weapon is a handgun, sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, any other firearm small enough to be concealed upon the person, semiautomatic firearm, or machine gun.

A Category II weapon is any other rifle, shotgun, spring gun, other firearm, stun gun or taser as defined in paragraph (a) of Section 24-1 of this Code, knife with a blade of at least 3 inches in length, dagger, dirk, switchblade knife, stiletto, axe, hatchet, or other deadly or dangerous weapon or instrument of like character. As used in this subsection (b) "semiautomatic firearm" means a repeating firearm that utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round and that requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.

(3) A Category III weapon is a bludgeon, black-jack, slungshot, sand-bag, sand-club, metal knuckles, billy, or other dangerous weapon of like character.

Trent
December 14, 2012, 12:12 PM
There's precedent in Illinois for removing acts by public act #;

People v. Cervantes knocked out the ENTIRE public act 88-680 because it violated constitutional procedure; 50+ laws went down in one shot (including gunrunning and other firearms violations).

Phatty
December 14, 2012, 12:57 PM
The particular provisions at issue are mentioned towards the beginning of the 7th Circuit's opinion.

They are:
720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)
720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(10)
720ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)

The way this works procedurally is that the 7th Circuit issues an opinion with a holding such as "a complete ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional." The case is then remanded back to the federal district court, where the judge is tasked with the assignment of entering an order consistent with the appellate court's opinion. That order will contain the details and specifics. It is the district judge's order that is directed to the state and which the state is required to obey.

Also, the applicable statutes are not wiped off the books or erased. They are still there. The district judge will simply enter an order prohibiting Illinois from enforcing the relevant provisions of the UUW (the three provisions I list above) that operate as a total ban on carrying in public. This is different from state supreme court cases that find a procedural deficiency regarding the passing of a public act and then void the entire act.

Trent
December 14, 2012, 01:06 PM
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification!

JTHunter
December 14, 2012, 03:09 PM
Illinoians - mark your calenders!

Sunday, June 9, 2013!!

Trent
December 14, 2012, 03:33 PM
You did the math? I was wondering what the actual date would be earlier but was too lazy to count it up. :)

fanchisimo
December 14, 2012, 04:23 PM
I'm curious, what happens to people who were arrested/imprisoned on illegal weapons charges, the ones that were ruled unconstitutional? Since the law was ruled unconstitutional, that means, retroactively, it no longer had the force of law and even if they pass a new law within the 180 days, ex post facto comes into play. They were arrested and charged under an unconstitutional law and possibly imprisoned, what happens to those people?

Phatty
December 14, 2012, 04:34 PM
To clarify the 180-day date, that date does not have an actual immediate effect on the citizens of Illinois. At the expiration of the 180 days, the 7th Circuit will issue its mandate to the district court. Once the district court receives the mandate there will be a bit of delay for the district court to then act on the mandate. The judge will probably ask for submissions from the parties for proposed actions to take in light of the mandate (such as a proposed order of injunction, etc.). The parties will be given x amount of days to submit those, and then there will be a further delay before the court acts on those submissions and actually enters an order directed against the State.

My point is that litigation is slow, really slow. Nothing happens fast. If you are an optimist you should be hoping that a law is passed allowing carry long before the 180 days is up so it won't make a difference.

JTHunter
December 14, 2012, 04:37 PM
Trent - 180 / 7 = 25.7 weeks (25 x 7 = 175 days).
IF you use the day of the decision, 12/11/12, then that is D-Day.
Otherwise, it might be the day after the decision is rendered, ergo, Monday the 10th.

Phatty
December 14, 2012, 04:48 PM
I'm curious, what happens to people who were arrested/imprisoned on illegal weapons charges, the ones that were ruled unconstitutional?
Excellent question. I can say for sure that people who have not yet been convicted will be able to get the case against them dismissed (but only for a charge based on carrying a weapon in public). Also, people that have been convicted and are still in the appellate stage of their case may be able to get the appellate court to reverse the conviction. I don't know enough to tell you whether a guy sitting in prison following a final appeal has any hope, or if a person no longer in prison can get the felony record expunged.

If you happen to get arrested for a carry crime tomorrow, then delay, delay, delay. In reality, except for ardent anti-gun locales, the state's attorneys are not going to be looking to prosecute these crimes. Why waste the time and money on a charge that a federal court has held is unconstitutional and will just get dismissed? But I still don't recommend that anyone run around packing heat in public right now because you could still get arrested by the police and spend a weekend in jail for your trouble and pay your attorney a nice sum of money.

Trent
December 14, 2012, 05:09 PM
I'd considered staring to carry, briefly, before discarding the notion.

The current state law IS still law. And you CAN AND WILL be arrested for violating the state laws still in effect. You'll go to jail, have to bond out, hire a lawyer, and spend a lot of time in court.

And if you end up LOSING, and get convicted of a felony, you'll lose all of your gun rights permanently.

I've been waiting 18 years for this.

I can wait another 6, 8, or 12 months.

rugerman07
December 14, 2012, 05:42 PM
I'm wondering what type of concealed carry law Quinn will come up with. Will it be a SHALL ISSUE or MAY ISSUE law? If it's a may issue there won't be many (if any) permits issued. How much will the permit cost? Will it be so costly that most people won't be able to afford one? Will he enhance gun free zones to the point that defeats the purpose of getting a permit?

fanchisimo
December 14, 2012, 06:22 PM
Phatty, the only thing I think they could do is to treat it almost like when a person in jail is freed due to new evidence or new forensic techniques. My understanding is that the justice system has some formula for compensation due to the time lost due to false imprisonment. I don't know about how many people in Illinois prisons or past inmates would be affected by this, but there seems to be a whole lot of ways this could affect issues. What if an UUW violation led to other charges, IE drug possession? Would the additional charge have to be vacated because it was discovered by way of the UUW? I'm just glad I don't live in Illinois, but my curiousity must be fed. Lol.

Kerf
December 15, 2012, 08:37 AM
Someone could research the Wilmette case where I believe a guy was arrested and imprisoned for warding off an intruder from his home with a handgun. I believe he was found guilty of possession of a handgun and was currently serving his sentence when the Heller decision came down. I think he was immediately released from prison after serving quite some time (18 months?) when Wilmette through in the towel on their gun ban law, along with Evanston,Mt. Prospect, etc. Anyone recall this better than I do? Shouldn’t be hard.

ilbob
December 15, 2012, 01:40 PM
Someone could research the Wilmette case where I believe a guy was arrested and imprisoned for warding off an intruder from his home with a handgun. I believe he was found guilty of possession of a handgun and was currently serving his sentence when the Heller decision came down. I think he was immediately released from prison after serving quite some time (18 months?) when Wilmette through in the towel on their gun ban law, along with Evanston,Mt. Prospect, etc. Anyone recall this better than I do? Shouldn’t be hard.
he was charged under a local ordinance. such ordinances are limited by the state constitution to a penalty not to exceed 6 months so he did not spend 18 months in jail.

the case led to a state law preempting such local ordinances when a firearm is used in self defense. I don't recall what happened but I don't think he did any time.

jawman
December 24, 2012, 12:53 PM
This is good news for Illinois, but it is still an uphill battle. HB148 is not good for fellow gun owners who want to concealed carry. It has too many restrictions and needs to be revised.

I think to do nothing and let the 180 days expire is a bad idea as then it could be up to local governments deciding their own laws instead of having a state-wide law.

I also don't plan on buying any CC gear yet because that will be a waste of money. We have no idea what the new law will be. Just like certain pistols can be CA or MA compliant, the same could apply to Illinois so I can't see any reason on purchasing anything for concealed carry until we know what the restrictions will be.

TyGuy
December 24, 2012, 01:14 PM
CCW gear isn't a waste of money if you have a Utah or Florida permit.

jawman
December 24, 2012, 03:45 PM
CCW gear isn't a waste of money if you have a Utah or Florida permit.

You do realize that this thread is specifically talking about concealed carry in Illinois, one of the worst anti-gun states (if not the worst) in the country? I personally think that to buy a handgun right now for future concealed carry in Illinois based on the recent UUW ruling is not a good idea because that handgun may not meet the requirements and restrictions that are yet to be ironed out, and I wouldn't want to own a small handgun suited for concealed carry that is illegal to carry in my home state, where 99.999% of my carrying will take place. I'm going to wait until everything is said and done before I get all excited and start buying a new handgun. But that's just me.

TyGuy
December 25, 2012, 12:33 AM
I live in Illinois, see under my user name. I carry wherever I legally can, which in the midwest is pretty much everywhere except Michigan. I've carried, outside of Illinois, for years no. Were my gear purchases a waste? No. Contrary to what IL politicians think there is more to the USA beyond the border of IL.

TyGuy
December 25, 2012, 12:35 AM
Also, I haven't been to every state, but I haven't seen any handgun specific restrictions as far as CCW goes. Yes, some states have laws against printing, but I've never seen a list of acceptable and unacceptable carry pistols. Did I miss something?

jawman
December 25, 2012, 12:40 AM
I live in Illinois, see under my user name. I carry wherever I legally can, which in the midwest is pretty much everywhere except Michigan. I've carried, outside of Illinois, for years no. Were my gear purchases a waste? No. Contrary to what IL politicians think there is more to the USA beyond the border of IL.
Gear is one thing but I am referring mostly to the CC handgun itself.

Also, I haven't been to every state, but I haven't seen any handgun specific restrictions as far as CCW goes. Yes, some states have laws against printing, but I've never seen a list of acceptable and unacceptable carry pistols. Did I miss something?
States like CA and MA have certain restrictions and the gun must be CA or MA compliant. Given Illinois' anti-gun nature, they might follow this as well. So it might be a good idea to hold off on buying a new handgun for IL carry until the smoke clears.

TyGuy
December 25, 2012, 12:47 AM
IL does have some firearms that you may not buy already. I can't imagine the, taking a previously legal to purchase handgun and saying it isn't applicable for CCW. As in CA and MD there are not separate CCW only lists.

Jeff White
December 26, 2012, 02:38 PM
IL does have some firearms that you may not buy already.

Really?? Which ones?? Outside of Class III weapons there are no statewide restrictions that I am aware of.

TyGuy
December 26, 2012, 03:44 PM
So called "pot metal" firearms. Once sec....

TyGuy
December 26, 2012, 03:48 PM
IDK where to find the list, but here is an example...

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/59751/Puma+1911-22+22LR+5%22+Blue%2C+Checkered+Wood+Grips

Geneseo1911
December 26, 2012, 03:57 PM
The only guns that law disallows are the Zamak pieces such as the GSG 1911-22, the Hertiage Rough Rider, and the "ring-of-fire" guns (Raven, et.all). It is based on the melting point of the frame material. I believe the two .22's listed above are available in steel versions, legal for IL. Not exactly guns I'd CC.

HB148 was actually a pretty good bill. More restricted areas than I'd like, but no worse than most states. The one that will pass in January will be even better. Come hang out at IllinoisCarry.com forum, and you can read about all the latest happenings!

TyGuy
December 26, 2012, 04:08 PM
Also come to IGOLD 2013

Jeff White
December 26, 2012, 04:28 PM
Ok I found what you seem to be referring to:


http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-3.htm

(720 ILCS 5/24-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-3)
Sec. 24-3. Unlawful sale or delivery of firearms.

(h) While holding any license as a dealer, importer,
manufacturer or pawnbroker under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, manufactures, sells or delivers to any unlicensed person a handgun having a barrel, slide, frame or receiver which is a die casting of zinc alloy or any other nonhomogeneous metal which will melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. For purposes of this paragraph, (1) "firearm" is defined as in the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act; and (2) "handgun" is defined as a firearm designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand, and includes a combination of parts from which such a firearm can be assembled.

The law says nothing about possession of such a firearm nor does it say that as an individual you can't sell one to another individual, it says a dealer, importer, manufacturer or pawnbroker can't sell one. Hardly an outright ban. There is no list of guns that meet this criteria in the law and I doubt it's ever been enforced.

NukemJim
December 26, 2012, 06:38 PM
"will melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. "

I've heard of this before. I kinda sorta thought they canceled/voided that law due to polymer pistols.

I have no clue.

NukemJim

hey_poolboy
December 26, 2012, 07:01 PM
Those states don't have any laws regarding a gun being legal for carry, just legal for sale in their state. If you can buy it there you can carry it.
I live in the wretched state of Il too. I was planning on getting my Ut. permit, but now I'm thinking of waiting rather than spending the money for it, then having to shell out for the no doubt astronomical fee that IL will want too.
As for me, I plan to carry one of the three capable guns I already own. Although, I'd love to have an XDS .45

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Hunter125
December 26, 2012, 10:36 PM
Those states don't have any laws regarding a gun being legal for carry, just legal for sale in their state. If you can buy it there you can carry it.
I live in the wretched state of Il too. I was planning on getting my Ut. permit, but now I'm thinking of waiting rather than spending the money for it, then having to shell out for the no doubt astronomical fee that IL will want too.
As for me, I plan to carry one of the three capable guns I already own. Although, I'd love to have an XDS .45

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The Utah is well worth it. 20 some other states actually afford me the right to carry now. It feels good to be out of IL and feel free when I travel.

Scimmia
December 27, 2012, 12:25 AM
"will melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit. "

I've heard of this before. I kinda sorta thought they canceled/voided that law due to polymer pistols.


Where'd you get that idea? You skipped quoting an important part of that law, that it only applies to "a die casting of zinc alloy or any other nonhomogeneous metal". Polymer doesn't count.

If you enjoyed reading about "IL UUW Ruled unconstitutional" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!