Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision


PDA






Trent
January 8, 2013, 04:13 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130108/news/701089795/


Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is trying to salvage the state's ban on concealed carry.

Madigan said Tuesday that she's filed a petition asking that all 15 judges on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals review a lawsuit challenging the ban.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ThePunisher'sArmory
January 8, 2013, 04:22 PM
You would think instead of wasting time fighting they would spend time writing a new bill to license people to CCW. Ya know like the rest of the nation. Do they not see how much extra money this would bring to the state? $200 per license x tens of thousands of participants = ALOT of bailout money for a broke state. Not to mention the lower crime rates due to fact that it would level the playing field for the bad guys. :confused:

Phatty
January 8, 2013, 04:49 PM
This is a predictable course of action by the state. There is definitely a better chance of success going the en banc route instead of appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Plus, the state does not have to worry about creating further bad law (for them) by keeping it in the appellate court. If they had appealed directly to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have either rejected the appeal or accepted the appeal and likely issued a pro-gun decision.

The linked article mentions rehearing by all 15 judges, but the en banc petition will only be reviewed and voted on by the 10 active judges in the 7th Circuit. The five senior judges won't participate.

What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing. Then the 10 judges will have a vote and a simple majority is needed to grant the petition. If it is denied, the state's only option is to appeal to the Supreme Court. If it is granted, the original opinion will be vacated (treated as if it never happened) and the case will be heard again by all 10 judges and a new opinion issued.

Based on the current composition of the Court, it is difficult for me to predict what might happen but I'm leaning slightly towards the petition being denied.

Jeff White
January 8, 2013, 04:57 PM
This is not at all unexpected. They were angered by the decision and the anger came out in the text of the bans they just proposed. They referred to the decision a couple times and it was like they were flipping off the court.

Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!

BCCL
January 8, 2013, 05:05 PM
Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!

Best assessment of them I've read in years.

Trent
January 8, 2013, 05:33 PM
Damn straight.

grptelli
January 8, 2013, 06:31 PM
I am not surprised by Lisa Madigan. She and her dad are terrible for anything related to IL. I wish I could move from here. Oh but the good news is IL is now going to let Illegal Aliens get a 3yr drivers license. ***!!! This.freakin state wants to grab our guns take away our rights and impose $25 gun tax on all guns sold in IL (goes in affect April 2013), but we are giving illegals drivers licenses? Really??? I even.read that they voted down having them finger printed because it would cost the state to much? Again ***! sorry for my rant....


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

w9trb
January 8, 2013, 07:55 PM
In simpler terms, does this mean a long delay of some type of Concealed Carry? I would rather have open carry but I know that is a day-dream.

Davey Wavey
January 8, 2013, 11:21 PM
"In simpler terms, does this mean a long delay of some type of Concealed Carry? I would rather have open carry but I know that is a day-dream."

Our 180 day clock is still running. We've ticked off something close to 30 days. If en banc is granted the previous ruling will be null and void. That's my understanding.

JTHunter
January 9, 2013, 12:41 AM
There were three phone numbers shown to call and try to get this "lame duck" gun ban stopped when the House reconvened on Sunday.
It worked!
Now we have to keep at these low lifes to prevent the new session from trying the same thing.
The numbers are:

Quinn's "Office of Constituent Affairs" is 217-782-0244. When I called on Sunday, the recording said that "the voice mailbox was full"!

Awww - ya THINK??

Madigan's number is 217-782-5350. The man that answered the phone had to put me on hold 3-4 times to answer other phones before I could finish what was on my notes.

I did NOT try Rahm's number in Chicago but here it is: 312-744-3300.

Keep these handy as you ALL know we will be doing this again REAL soon!

legaleagle_45
January 9, 2013, 11:48 AM
Petition is here:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/Moore-en-banc-Petition-2013-01-08.pdf

Brady Bunch Amicus brief is here:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/Brady-en-banc-Amicus-2013-01-08.pdf

Captain*kirk
January 9, 2013, 12:12 PM
Mumbo jumbo.
Can anyone translate into layman's terms?

Trent
January 9, 2013, 12:53 PM
Lisa Madigan is a criminal. Seriously.

She recently sued Pfizer with a number of other attorneys on behalf of Illinois.

Was awarded 43 million dollars in a settlement.

Illinois received 2.1 million of that settlement.

Her and her fellow attorneys received the other 40.9 million dollars.

She's in it for the money.

Phatty
January 9, 2013, 02:37 PM
She recently sued Pfizer with a number of other attorneys on behalf of Illinois.

Was awarded 43 million dollars in a settlement.

Illinois received 2.1 million of that settlement.

Her and her fellow attorneys received the other 40.9 million dollars.

She's in it for the money.

I'm not going to try to defend Lisa Madigan, but this information about the Pfizer settlement is not accurate. The $43 million settlement was between Pfizer and 32 states plus the District of Columbia. Thus, the settlement was split up 33 ways, with Illinois receiving $2.1 million as its share of the settlement. Each of the states was represented by their respective Attorney Generals. None of the Attorney Generals personally received any of the settlement proceeds.

Trent
January 9, 2013, 02:43 PM
Ahh I stand corrected. I found the original article and you are absolutely correct; http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2012_12/20121212.html

I should have second sourced news like this, usually I do. :)

lilguy
January 9, 2013, 03:01 PM
She's part of the crime family running the state, an absolute enemy of gun owners. She had no problem releaseing the FOID files to the media. She needs to be challenged every time she moves against us.

splattergun
January 9, 2013, 09:34 PM
$200 per license

?!?! Holy Cow!

bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 09:44 PM
What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing.

I think you are mistaken

Counsel must file a petition for rehearing electronically using the ECF system. Within 3 days of electronic filing, counsel must also file 15 paper copies of a petition for rehearing, except that 30 copies must be filed if the petitioner suggests a rehearing en banc. Cir. R. 40(b). The petition may be no longer than 15 pages. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b). The cover to the petition should be white. Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)(A). No answer may be filed to a petition for rehearing unless the court calls for one, in which event the clerk will so notify counsel. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a). A 10 day time limit for the answer is usually set. In the absence of such a request, a petition for rehearing will “ordinarily not be granted.” Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(3). (emphasis added)

The above is found at pp. 137-38 here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rules/handbook.pdf

kbbailey
January 9, 2013, 09:55 PM
Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!

Painfully true^^^

Al Norris
January 9, 2013, 10:07 PM
There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.

Responses due on the 23rd.

bushmaster1313
January 9, 2013, 10:19 PM
Rehearing en banc will be granted only if a majority
of the voting active judges vote to grant such a rehearing. 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), Fed. R.
App. P. 35(a), 7th Cir. Oper. P. 5(d)(1).

Majority of voting active judges needed for rehearing en banc.

Note: the request for an answer, and a rehearing if granted, will delay the issue of the mandate from the original panel decision, giving Illinois more time to comply with panel decision.

And, if rehearing is granted, the en banc court could overturn the panel decision and reinstate the law. Then it would be off to the Supreme Court.

If it was not so serious it would be very entertaining.

Ehtereon11B
January 10, 2013, 09:16 AM
Illinois is just going to get its wrist slapped again. They were told it was unconstitutional. If they continue to fight it, will just go to the 9th Court.

NukemJim
January 10, 2013, 09:37 AM
"If they continue to fight it, will just go to the 9th Court."

Sorry, I do not understand, could you please explain?

Thank you

NukemJim

Ehtereon11B
January 10, 2013, 09:48 AM
This chart explains it well. Works for other states if you just replace "Illinois." When a legal decision isn't decided strongly within state court systems as Illinois has controlled in the past it goes to Federal Circuit courts. The article states the 7th Circuit court. The Supreme Court is the final say and they look more at the lower court decisions (state and federal) and pick who was right in their decision of law interpretation. Or they smash down the hammer and do their own.

http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/reference/Reference%20images/federal%20court%20diagram.jpg

Jeff White
January 10, 2013, 11:39 AM
When a legal decision isn't decided strongly within state court systems as Illinois has controlled in the past it goes to Federal Circuit courts. The article states the 7th Circuit court.

It's a 7th Circuit Court decision they are appealing. The next step is for it to be heard by the full court, then if that isn't satisfactory it's on to the USSC.

Trent
January 10, 2013, 11:55 AM
Yup, this already went out of Illinois.

Any idea on the time frame for this 10 person vote coming up? Or the political leanings of the Judges on that panel?

Phatty
January 10, 2013, 04:29 PM
What happens now is that the plaintiffs will get a chance to file an answer to the petition for rehearing.

I think you are mistaken.

You are technically correct that the responding party only gets to answer when it is requested, but as a matter of practice it is almost always requested, and in important cases such as this it is always requested. So, when I stated that the plaintiffs will get a chance to answer, that was based on the knowledge that answers are always requested in cases such as this.

There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.
As I mentioned, this is nothing out of the ordinary and was to be expected.

Phatty
January 10, 2013, 04:40 PM
Any idea on the time frame for this 10 person vote coming up?
The plaintiffs' answer is due on January 23. Within 10 days after the filing of the answer, one of the judges will request a vote. Each judge must vote within 14 days from the request to vote. So, at the latest, the judges will vote within 24 days of January 23.

But, there's no time limit on when the judges have to issue an order revealing the vote. That time line is highly dependent on each individual case. For example if there is a 6-4 vote to deny the petition for rehearing, the 4 judges in the minority have the right to author a dissenting opinion expressing their view and that can take some time to author. If the vote is 10-0 either way, the order would probably issue the day after the vote.

Phatty
January 10, 2013, 05:08 PM
Or the political leanings of the Judges on that panel?
Right off the bat, you can guess how 3 of the 10 judges will vote, because the three judges on the original panel are likely to vote the same way.

So, Posner and Flaum will likely vote to deny rehearing and Williams will vote to grant rehearing.

The most dependable pro-gun vote on the court IMHO is Sykes, so she is very likely a "deny" vote as well. She authored the Ezell opinion (striking down Chicago's shooting range ban) and was the sole dissenting vote in Skoien (unsuccessful challenge to federal gun ban for persons convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence). The for sure "grant" vote is Diane Wood, a liberal leaning member of the court nominated by Clinton. You can probably assume that David Hamilton (nominated by Obama) will also vote to grant the petition. Kanne (a Reagan nominee) will probably vote to deny the petition. Kanne concurred with Sykes in the Ezell opinion.

The remaining judges aren't so clear. Rovner (a Bush I nominee) did concur with the Ezell judgment, but authored a separate opinion that was less pro-gun. I think he will vote "deny" but I'm not sure. Easterbrook (Reagan nominee) is known as a conservative judge, but I don't think he is pro-gun (and may in fact be personally hostile to gun rights), but even if he doesn't favor gun rights I think, unlike liberal judges, he will follow the law honestly. He may vote to grant the petition for rehearing, but I think that would only be because he wants to make the scope of the opinion narrower even if he agrees that the ban is unconstitutional. I don't know enough about Tinder (Bush II nominee) to predict his vote, but at least he is a Republican-nominated judge.

So the total tally is:
Posner -- Deny
Flaum -- Deny
Sykes -- Deny
Kanne -- Deny
Easterbrook -- Maybe
Tinder -- Maybe
Rovner -- Maybe
Wood -- Grant
Williams -- Grant
Hamilton -- Grant

In order to grant Illinois' petition, there needs to be 6 votes. That means that besides the four likely deny votes, we only need one of the "maybes" to come to our side. Because all of the maybe's are Republican appointed judges, we have a good chance to get that last "deny" vote.

Al Norris
January 10, 2013, 06:26 PM
There is evidently more interest in this than at first blush. Earlier today, the CA7 requested a response from the winning counsel.As I mentioned, this is nothing out of the ordinary and was to be expected.

What is unusual is for such a request to come this fast at the 7th circuit. At least the appellate attorneys I've spoken with have all said this.

I believe we will see an en banc rehearing. This is based upon the seriousness of the decision, which struck down a (decades old) State law. Doesn't much matter that we (mostly all) think the decision was proper, it is always a serious matter to invalidate a State law.

Phatty
January 10, 2013, 07:17 PM
What is unusual is for such a request to come this fast at the 7th circuit. At least the appellate attorneys I've spoken with have all said this.

I believe we will see an en banc rehearing. This is based upon the seriousness of the decision, which struck down a (decades old) State law. Doesn't much matter that we (mostly all) think the decision was proper, it is always a serious matter to invalidate a State law.
They did act on it relatively quickly, but that's more a reflection of it being high profile and one of the anti-gun liberals on the court probably making the request. If this was a boring contract case, for example, when a petition comes in each of the judges would need time to read the petition, read the original decision and decide what to do. Here, either Diane Wood or Ann Williams likely had their minds made up that they wanted a rehearing before the petition was even filed.

If five or six judges read the original opinion and decide that they would have concurred with the opinion, I don't think they'll vote for the rehearing because it would be a complete waste of their time. It wouldn't make sense to grant the rehearing just so that you could enter an identical opinion nine months later. Posner is one of (if not the most) influential judges on the court, so the fact that he authored the original opinion may sway some of the other judges to get on board with him.

wep45
January 10, 2013, 09:29 PM
if illinois wants change............2013 is election year..........WAKE up...STAND up.... and vote the Q BALL and ALL the other out!!:D

WE CAN OVERCOME!!!

JTHunter
January 12, 2013, 11:18 PM
The upcoming IGold (Il. Gun Owner's Lobby Day) rally in early March will be VERY interesting this year!

meleors
January 13, 2013, 03:09 AM
Quinn will not be up for re-election until 2014.

Al Norris
January 24, 2013, 02:20 AM
The response from Alan Gura and Charles Cooper are in.

By themselves, the briefs are good. To see some interesting interaction between the NRA (Shepard) and the SAF (Moore), read the Shepard brief first. It came in early this afternoon.

Then read the More brief. It's a rewrite by Gura and uploaded by David Jensen, about an hour before it was due.

Trent
January 24, 2013, 03:13 AM
Quite a read! Don't have a deep understanding of a lot of the stuff they're talking about.

But, there's a special place in my heart for those who are willing (and quite able) to slug it out with Madigan. :)

How long does the Court have left to decide if the en banc hearing will go forward?

Davey Wavey
January 24, 2013, 03:49 AM
Ten days for the judges to call for a vote. Then fourteen days to get their votes in if a vote is called. Maximum of twenty four days for us to see what happens next.

Phatty
January 24, 2013, 11:00 AM
Maximum of twenty four days for us to see what happens next.
The judges will know the result of the vote within a maximum of 24 days, but there's no rule governing when they have to publicly release the result of the vote. In other words, it may be much longer than 24 days before we hear anything.

Al Norris
January 24, 2013, 11:15 AM
The other side of that coin is that if no judge calls for a vote, there will be no rehearing. We could know in as few as 10 days.

Prophet
January 24, 2013, 11:19 AM
Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!

Amen.

Phatty
January 24, 2013, 11:33 AM
The other side of that coin is that if no judge calls for a vote, there will be no rehearing. We could know in as few as 10 days.
That is true. If the judges are unanimous to deny the petition, or if there is a majority vote to deny the petition and no judge wants to write an opinion concurring with or dissenting from that decision, we'll find out the result of the vote right away.

The anti-gun judges will definitely vote to grant the petition, so there won't be a unanimous vote to deny. Also, I think that if there is, for example, a 6-4 vote to deny the petition, one of the anti-gun judges will want to write a dissenting opinion and that takes time.

mgkdrgn
January 24, 2013, 06:56 PM
Of course they are ... and they will continue to fight to the last taxpayer dollar.

Texshooter
January 24, 2013, 09:22 PM
Let S/A know you want them out of Ill. if they want any more of your money.

k_dawg
January 24, 2013, 11:11 PM
Basically, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is upset that her white hood was removed publically.

She is hoping there are enough secret white hoods in the rest of the court willing to deny basic human rights to the 'undesirables'.

Unfortunately, our current Executive Branch is unwilling to march Federal Troops to defend the free excercise of civil rights already ruled upon by the SCOTUS.

In the mean time, the back of the bus is very crowded. Pray these modern day Jim Crow Laws do not start thuggery tactics such as lighting off crosses and lynching people.

Autolycus
January 25, 2013, 06:51 AM
It is a serious waste of my tax dollars.

Phatty
February 21, 2013, 11:57 AM
The 7th Circuit has not yet entered an order on the State's petition for rehearing. I think this is good news. The vote amongst the judges of the 7th Circuit has already taken place. Typically, where the judges vote to grant a rehearing, an order is issued almost immediately after the vote. If the vote is to deny the rehearing, any dissenting judges get the opportunity to draft a dissenting opinion and that takes time, which can delay the entry of the order.

As a frame of reference, in the USA v. Skoien case (defendant challenged the domestic violence misdemeanor ban as unconstitutional) the initial 3-judge panel on the 7th Circuit vacated the judgment against the defendant. The US Attorney petitioned for a rehearing en banc and the 7th Circuit granted the petition 19 days after the answer to the petition was filed.

We are now 28 days after the answer to the petition was filed and still no order. I think there will be good news.

El Tejon
February 21, 2013, 04:11 PM
I don't know enough about Tinder (Bush II nominee) to predict his vote, but at least he is a Republican-nominated judge.


Tinder is from the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis). What little I know of him, I would be shocked if he voted to grant rehr'g.

Trent
February 21, 2013, 07:03 PM
Phatty, thanks for the update!

Quick Draw McGraw
February 22, 2013, 12:05 PM
So it looks like the rehearing was denied! Woot

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=12-1269_003.pdf

El Tejon
February 22, 2013, 12:26 PM
A police shooting in New York City is evidence of the danger of upholding the right of non-police to exercise a civil right?:D

Hamilton is also from the Southern District of Indiana. I express no shock at his dissent.

Trent
February 22, 2013, 01:20 PM
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haha this is awesome news.

June 9th, can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trent
February 22, 2013, 01:43 PM
Read the dissenting opinion.

Can someone with an understanding of the issue break this down:

"(e) Finally, the panel opinion, Heller, and McDonald do not prevent Illinois from imposing reasonable limits on which arms may be carried in public. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 627. We can be reasonably confident that the Second Amendment rights are not limited to arms known to the Framers of the amendment, but also confident that the rights do not extend to all the arms that a modern militia might need."

It sounds like they are agreeing that the Second Amendment does not cover just muskets, but they're drawing the line at some ambiguous point on arms that the militia might need.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the militia can't own the arms "it might need" doesn't that really curtail the capability of the militia?

Let's consider I am fantastically wealthy and have money to blow on goofy stuff, like defense of my homeland. In my opinion, I should be able to go buy and own an Abrams tank. Now, I might not have the right to drive that tank down main street to pick up the kids from school. Or to practice live fire drills and maneuvers in my back 40. But I have the *right* to own that tank. Or a rocket launcher. Or a surface to air missile.

A reasonable restriction, therefore, should not be on the OWNERSHIP of such devices and articles of war, but rather, how and when they can be used (so long as such outlet exists).

E.g. If I want to personally own a rack of Stinger missile launchers, I should be able to, provided that they are secured in an armory, and don't practice target shooting in unrestricted commercial airspace. The private ownership of those missiles should be unrestricted, provided they are secure from unlawful, malicious intent - so that they are available should the need ever arise.

Likewise, if I were to fund, privately, my own Minuteman missile silo, and delegate command authority to the US Government, I should be allowed to. Maybe paint my name on the warhead, put pictures above my fireplace on the mantle. Possession of that article of war would be severely restricted, but if we ever needed to glass over a foreign country who launched against us, I could feel confident in my bomb shelter that I have "done my part".

I believe the Militia (of the people) needs to have parity in modern warfare.

Period.

You want to restrict possession, or set period of time when I can train my tank crew on the use of my Abrams tank, fine. But ownership of articles of war, is a fundamental right.

Just my .02.

:)

unspellable
February 22, 2013, 01:50 PM
Quote: Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!

I'm missing something. How does this distinguish them from "regular' politicians?

Trent
February 22, 2013, 02:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wh8Jo99GJ7g

Judiciary committee live feed, on now. (2nd half, taking place in Chicago this afternoon)

McCarthy is speaking now, wonder how he'll offend gun owners today.

Skylerbone
February 22, 2013, 02:16 PM
...

Phatty
February 22, 2013, 03:02 PM
My update yesterday was nicely timed :)

This is great news, not just for Illinois but the rest of the country as well. The Kachalsky case in the 2nd Circuit has a much better chance of reaching the Supreme Court now.

Trent, pay no attention to the dissention opinion. It is nothing but a poor loser rant and a way for the anti-gun judges to try to influence the legislators in Illinois and the lower court judges who will be reviewing future cases.

Frank Ettin
February 22, 2013, 03:02 PM
...It sounds like they are agreeing that the Second Amendment does not cover just muskets, but they're drawing the line at some ambiguous point on arms that the militia might need.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the militia can't own the arms "it might need" doesn't that really curtail the capability of the militia?
.....

I believe the Militia (of the people) needs to have parity in modern warfare....How nice for you. But be that as it may, as I've discussed multiple times, each regulation of the rights described in the Second Amendment will, when and if litigated, be subject to judicial determination in the manner and applying the standards generally applicable to other regulation of enumerated rights.

But I strongly suspect that private ownership of Stinger missiles won't make the cut.

powell&hyde
February 22, 2013, 03:32 PM
I think Todd did a good job at that meeting that Trent posted.

Warners
February 22, 2013, 03:33 PM
This is GREAT news. I think this leaves Madigan and company only ONE option....to appeal to the SCOTUS, which I don't think they will want to do. Certainly other anti-gun states won't want them to do it, at least. We're one big step closer, I think. As a lifelong resident of the People's Republik of Illinois, I'm reluctant to get too excited, but this is very promising news.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9002745&rss=rss-wls-article-9002745


Warner

Trent
February 22, 2013, 03:34 PM
Yeah Todd did a fantastic job at that Judicial committee hearing.

How nice for you. But be that as it may, as I've discussed multiple times, each regulation of the rights described in the Second Amendment will, when and if litigated, be subject to judicial determination in the manner and applying the standards generally applicable to other regulation of enumerated rights.

But I strongly suspect that private ownership of Stinger missiles won't make the cut.

A guy can dream, can't he?

:)

Dframe
February 22, 2013, 04:08 PM
Breaking news! The court has refused to rehear the case!

Dframe
February 22, 2013, 04:14 PM
I'm also a life long resident of Illinois. We are currently under the thumb of chicago occupation forces here in the Capitol. Like Warners I am cautiously optomisitc. Madigan will be under a lot of political pressure from places like New York, NOT to take this to scotus for fear of losing their OWN ability to pass draconian anti-gun laws.

Dave Workman
February 22, 2013, 05:31 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/saf-scores-another-win-for-concealed-carry?cid=db_articles


It's interesting to watch these guys do the funky chicken in Springfield now because they have no choice.

It is also interesting to consider this: My take focuses on CCW. It would be astonishing, but not impossible, for Illinois lawmakers to do something with open carry. I think they'll go with some kind of CCW approach, but the OC movement would be partying until dawn if Illinois couldn't come up with something and then got stuck with "constitutional carry."

In which case, we could all lean back in our lawn chairs and :neener::neener::neener:

klcmschlesinger
February 22, 2013, 05:45 PM
You said they are doing the funky chicken in Springfield. Even though our politicians are elected in Springfield, they are hardly ever there, even when session is in, they are in Chicago, cause that is where all criminals in this state go.....:neener:

Phatty
February 22, 2013, 06:33 PM
It is also interesting to consider this: My take focuses on CCW. It would be astonishing, but not impossible, for Illinois lawmakers to do something with open carry. I think they'll go with some kind of CCW approach, but the OC movement would be partying until dawn if Illinois couldn't come up with something and then got stuck with "constitutional carry."


One of my pet peeves is that every news outlet reporting on the federal appeals court decision has a headline like, "7th Circuit Orders Illinois to Require Concealed Carry." The court did not order Illinois to require "concealed carry." Illinois simply has to allow the carrying of guns in public, be it open, concealed or both.

The leading CCW bill working its way through the Illinois General Assembly right now allows both open and concealed carry. I would be pleasantly surprised if the final bill permitted open carry.

ilbob
February 22, 2013, 07:16 PM
Stinger missiles are more likely to make the cut than something like an M2 Browning machine gun, being as a Stinger is something one can carry, and an M2 is not.

The court is sort of in a corner here. If they continue down the bear=carry path, they are going to end up having to rule that basically any weapon that one can reasonably be said to be carried is something covered by the 2A.

At some point they are going to have to limit the bear=carry mantra to deal with a lot of things that can be easily hand carried or face the inevitable end result of their own logic which is going to make it very hard to ban a whole lot of things that are currently banned or very tough to come by.

Phatty
February 22, 2013, 07:38 PM
The court is sort of in a corner here. If they continue down the bear=carry path, they are going to end up having to rule that basically any weapon that one can reasonably be said to be carried is something covered by the 2A.
I'm not seeing the connection between recognizing the right to carry weapons in public and the types of arms that are covered by the 2A. Using that same logic, because I have the right to "keep" arms, and "keeping arms" refers to the possession and storage of arms at one's residence, I therefore have the right to keep a battle tank in my garage.

I haven't seen any legal opinions that have made a connection between the types of arms that are covered by the 2A and the locations where the 2A extends. They have been treated as completely separate questions.

wriggly
February 22, 2013, 09:50 PM
Yeah Todd did a fantastic job at that Judicial committee hearing.





I did not know Todd Vandermyde till today. He did an outstanding job. Why cant we get a guy like that for President?

ilbob
February 23, 2013, 01:10 AM
One of my pet peeves is that every news outlet reporting on the federal appeals court decision has a headline like, "7th Circuit Orders Illinois to Require Concealed Carry." The court did not order Illinois to require "concealed carry." Illinois simply has to allow the carrying of guns in public, be it open, concealed or both.

The leading CCW bill working its way through the Illinois General Assembly right now allows both open and concealed carry. I would be pleasantly surprised if the final bill permitted open carry.
I would be unsurprised if Madigan just said to hell with it and no bill passed and the 180 days expired. Then we would be in a weird position of not being in violation of the UUW act but every home rule unit could come up with their own set of rules and we would not be able to carry in any place covered by the phrase "supported in full or in part by public funds". It is "only" a class A misdemeanor, but a year in jail is no party.

Black Butte
February 23, 2013, 11:41 AM
In the end, Illinois will adopt may issue, and only for cause. Unless you can prove some crime syndicate has a contract out on you, you're carrying NOTHING in this state.

What's truly sad is the word "Illinois" is the French version of an Algonquin Indian word for "warriors" or "tribe of superior men."

Deanimator
February 23, 2013, 11:46 AM
Unless you can prove some crime syndicate has a contract out on you, you're carrying NOTHING in this state.
Who do you think RUNS Illinois?

They don't call it the "combine" for nothing.

ilbob
February 23, 2013, 02:21 PM
In the end, Illinois will adopt may issue, and only for cause. Unless you can prove some crime syndicate has a contract out on you, you're carrying NOTHING in this state.

What's truly sad is the word "Illinois" is the French version of an Algonquin Indian word for "warriors" or "tribe of superior men."
Did you think it was going to be easy?

ilbob
February 23, 2013, 02:39 PM
I'm not seeing the connection between recognizing the right to carry weapons in public and the types of arms that are covered by the 2A. Using that same logic, because I have the right to "keep" arms, and "keeping arms" refers to the possession and storage of arms at one's residence, I therefore have the right to keep a battle tank in my garage.

I haven't seen any legal opinions that have made a connection between the types of arms that are covered by the 2A and the locations where the 2A extends. They have been treated as completely separate questions.
There is a logical connection between the idea of bearing arms and what arms that applies to. Now that bearing has been equated to carrying by the court, there is at least some linkage of the idea that only arms that can be carried (presumably by a single person) are protected.

That would leave out things like artillery pieces, fighter jets, and nukes.

It would leave in a lot of things that are currently banned, or difficult and expensive to acquire.

I always thought the use of the phrase "in case of confrontation" found in Heller was an odd choice of words, and seemed out of place to me. I now wonder if it was deliberately added so that there is some rationale for banning or highly regulating items that the court might be able to rule are able to be carried, but not useful in case of confrontation. Things like bacteriological weapons comes to mind.

Trent
February 23, 2013, 03:12 PM
Good thing I can carry my semi-auto belt fed 50 BMG by myself. (Barely)

It should stay covered. :)

Jeff White
February 23, 2013, 04:07 PM
Today's ISRA Alert:

URGENT ALERT – YOUR ACTION REQUIRED

MIKE MADIGAN READY TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE ONCE AGAIN



Mike Madigan is ticked off...

Why is Mike Madigan so ticked off? Quite simply, he’s ticked off because the 7th District Court of Appeals has told him plainly that the legislature must bow to constitutional authority – not to the whims of Mike Madigan. And we all know what a control freak Mike Madigan is.

No, Mike Madigan is no longer in control of the concealed carry debate. The courts have said once and for all that Illinois will join 49 other states in allowing citizens to carry defensive firearms.

The court has really ticked Madigan off...

Mike Madigan is so ticked off that he plans to introduce his own version of a concealed carry bill early next week. Of course, under Madigan’s carry bill, the only people who would be allowed to carry would be... um... nobody.

Although the details of Madigan’s concealed carry bill (HR1155) have not yet been released, those close to Madigan are saying that it will be the most restrictive concealed carry bill in the nation.

One insider termed Madigan’s proposal, “...the closest thing to no-carry at all.”


WHAT YOU MUST DO TO STOP MADIGAN’S INSULTING BILL

1. Beginning first thing Monday morning, call your state representative and politely tell them that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you oppose Madigan’s insulting HR1155 and that you would like them to vote against the bill.

2. Pass this alert on to all your friends and family members and ask them to call their state representatives as well.

3. Please post this alert to any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you belong.

If you do not know who your state representative is, please click the link below and you will be able to identify your representative and get their Springfield phone number.

The Illinois State Board of Elections has a new interactive search page here:
www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx


Carry the mission to The Capitol! Join your fellow Illinois Gun Owners in Springfield on March 6 at IGOLD - Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day - igold.isra.org

Please make a donation on-line here , or over the phone at 815-635-3198. If you would like to mail or fax a donation, we have a printable form here .

If you're not an ISRA member, now is the time. You can join on-line , or over the phone at 815-635-3198. You can download a printable application form here .

Dframe
February 23, 2013, 04:21 PM
I strongly suspect Mike Madigan father of Amy will introduce some form of concealed carry legislation since he has NO choice. It will be as RESTRICTIVE as possible. If he had his way there would be only a few permits issued and all would go to chicago legislators.

ilbob
February 23, 2013, 05:41 PM
I strongly suspect Mike Madigan father of Amy will introduce some form of concealed carry legislation since he has NO choice. It will be as RESTRICTIVE as possible. If he had his way there would be only a few permits issued and all would go to chicago legislators.
He has all kinds of choices. He could seriously try to get a very restricted may-issue bill passed. Probably does not have the votes for that. But he may introduce and make a show of such a bill. he is not going to waste a lot of his political capital on such a bill though IMO. It just does not matter enough to him.

He could publicly oppose the NRA bill while doing little to impede it.

Or he could screw us over big time and do nothing, and allow no bill to go forward, which he probably can do.

In the end, if any LTC bill passes, it is most likely to be by acquiescence of Madigan if not actual support.

Trent
February 23, 2013, 06:20 PM
I think they're going to let it ride.

Even if the State goes constitutional carry, that leave Chicago free to pass their own version of Home Rule CCW, which residents will have to abide by.

Phatty
February 23, 2013, 08:02 PM
The vast majority of "pro gun" legislators in Illinois are nowhere near as pro gun as the members here. They would be scared to death of constitutional carry and see it as unacceptable. That's why I think when push comes to shove at the end of the spring session, the pro-gun legislators in Illinois will back down and agree to a bad compromise instead of passing nothing.

El Tejon
February 24, 2013, 10:27 AM
As screwed up as Illinois is, I suspect a very weak bill being passed with 5 minutes before the deadline.

My hope is that ISRA uses some political Judo and allows the dysfunctional government to implement Wyoming carry by default.

If so I vow to walk down Michigan (both levels) open carrying. Maybe I'll go visit my old school on Adams.:D

Nanook
February 25, 2013, 10:35 AM
We have 47 co-sponsors for HB0997, but it's stuck in committee. From what Todd Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist says, there are at least 60 votes in favor of CCW which is enough to pass good amendments to the shell bill Madigan is putting out.

We would need 71 votes to get past Quinncometax's inevitable veto. The so-called super-majority.

It's possible the tactic by Madigan and his cronies may backfire on them and work to our advantage. Tuesday will tell the tale.

ilbob
February 25, 2013, 07:34 PM
The vast majority of "pro gun" legislators in Illinois are nowhere near as pro gun as the members here. They would be scared to death of constitutional carry and see it as unacceptable. That's why I think when push comes to shove at the end of the spring session, the pro-gun legislators in Illinois will back down and agree to a bad compromise instead of passing nothing.
I would suggest that since there are other provisions of IL law that would make carrying in public very problematic, just letting the decision go into effect is a real option. It would not be a UUW violation, but it would still be illegal. And the antis would not have to do anything with LTC at all.

Phatty
February 25, 2013, 08:50 PM
I would suggest that since there are other provisions of IL law that would make carrying in public very problematic, just letting the decision go into effect is a real option. It would not be a UUW violation, but it would still be illegal. And the antis would not have to do anything with LTC at all.
I'm assuming you're referring to 720 ILCS 5/21-6 that prohibits weapons in buildings or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds.

Just because the 7th Circuit opinion did not mention this specific section, does not mean that it isn't also unconstitutional. For example, the Illinois legislature could not re-pass an identical UUW statute as a new statute and argue that the 7th Circuit's ruling only applied to the old law. In sum, the 7th Circuit held that a complete ban on the carrying of weapons in public by law-abiding citizens is not allowed. Section 21-6 cited above operates as just such a flat ban, and would be equally unconstitutional. Even the idiots in Chicago know that they cannot simply pass their own total ban -- that's why they will pass a restrictive "may (not) issue" scheme and then argue that the scheme is consistent with the 2A.

Hopefully, to avoid any confusion, the plaintiffs' lawyers in these lawsuits are aware of Section 21-6 and make sure that the district court's injunction specifically references that section in addition to the UUW sections.

Jeff White
February 26, 2013, 05:39 PM
HB-1155 - Floor fight in the Illinois House of Representatives right now!


It's a floor fight going on in the Illinois House of Representatives right now on Mike Madigan's HB-1155 carry bill.

It's time a again to call your representative and urge hiim or her to only support the amendments to this bill that have been introduced by Brandon Phelps (right now that's amendment #27)

Any amendment not by Brandon Phelps is an attempt to restrict your rights and is not supported by ISRA. Urge your representative to vote NO on any such amendment.

If you do not know who your state representative is, please click the link below and you will be able to identify your representative and get their Springfield phone number.

The Illinois State Board of Elections has a new interactive search page here:
www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

If you know who your representative is, you can find their contact info here:
www.ilga.gov/house/.

I just read through all 27 proposed amendments. Looks like the plan is to make it legal to carry, but there would be very few places you were permitted to actually carry. :barf:

Some of the restrictions don't exempt peace officers. Seems they are at least as ignorant as the New York democrats.

I freaking hate Chicago and everything that goes with it!!

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 05:48 PM
I just read through all 27 proposed amendments. Looks like the plan is to make it legal to carry, but there would be very few places you were permitted to actually carry. :barf:

Some of the restrictions don't exempt peace officers. Seems they are at least as ignorant as the New York democrats.

I freaking hate Chicago and everything that goes with it!!
We're in trouble. Amendment 2 was adopted with a comfortable majority.

Sam Cade
February 26, 2013, 05:52 PM
I strongly suspect Mike Madigan father of Amy

Amy Madigan? The actress? Not unless he was fathering children at the age of fourteen. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Madigan



Lisa Madigan is the the Illy-noise AG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Madigan

rodinal220
February 26, 2013, 06:09 PM
HB1155 is on the Illinois House floor as this is posted.Watch or listen to the floor pablum:barf:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/audvid.asp#

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 06:12 PM
Two more amendments have just been filed.

Amendment 28 requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the police.

Amendment 29 amends the FOID act to make it a Class 4 Felony (instead of a petty offense) to fail to make a record of the transfer of a firearm.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 06:16 PM
Amendment 3 has been adopted by a 71-38-4 vote. It prohibts the carrying of firearms in a day care or in the surrounding property or parking lot.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 06:46 PM
Amendment 4 has been adopted by a 66-41-7 vote. This is an oversimplification, but it generally prohibits firearms in all government owned or controlled buildings and surrounding property.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 07:05 PM
Amendment 5 has been adopted by a 56-47-11 vote. It prohibits firearms in casinos and other establishments that are licensed to have video gaming (of the gambling variety). Like the other amendments, the prohibition extends to the parking lot and other surrounding buildings/property.

ilbob
February 26, 2013, 07:17 PM
I'm assuming you're referring to 720 ILCS 5/21-6 that prohibits weapons in buildings or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds.

Just because the 7th Circuit opinion did not mention this specific section, does not mean that it isn't also unconstitutional. For example, the Illinois legislature could not re-pass an identical UUW statute as a new statute and argue that the 7th Circuit's ruling only applied to the old law. In sum, the 7th Circuit held that a complete ban on the carrying of weapons in public by law-abiding citizens is not allowed. Section 21-6 cited above operates as just such a flat ban, and would be equally unconstitutional. Even the idiots in Chicago know that they cannot simply pass their own total ban -- that's why they will pass a restrictive "may (not) issue" scheme and then argue that the scheme is consistent with the 2A.

Hopefully, to avoid any confusion, the plaintiffs' lawyers in these lawsuits are aware of Section 21-6 and make sure that the district court's injunction specifically references that section in addition to the UUW sections.
maybe, maybe not, but we would have to go back and litigate it if we do not get LTC. along with dozens of existing home rule ordinances that have similar effect.

IL could claim this is their "sensitive places" list.

besides, this is all a sham. madigan is going to let everyone that wants to get to record a vote on their favorite infringements so they can use that when they run for re-election and for fundraising purposes. some will use their vote against the infringements to raise funds, other will use their vote in favor of infringements in their fund raising.

Nanook
February 26, 2013, 07:22 PM
It looks like the amendments are being voted on and since many of them conflict with each other, it will kill the bill. This bill is horse manure, and it is DOA whenever this silliness plays itself out.

And HB997 is now out of the committee which is great news.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 07:24 PM
besides, this is all a sham. madigan is going to let everyone that wants to get to record a vote on their favorite infringements so they can use that when they run for re-election and for fundraising purposes. some will use their vote against the infringements to raise funds, other will use their vote against for fund raising.
I suspect that you are correct. But the end game is still not clear so I'm being extremely cautious at every step of this process.

ilbob
February 26, 2013, 07:27 PM
I suspect that you are correct. But the end game is still not clear so I'm being extremely cautious at every step of this process.
The end game is unknowable at this point, until we find out if the state asks and gets cert from SCOTUS.

Jeff White
February 26, 2013, 07:30 PM
besides, this is all a sham. madigan is going to let everyone that wants to get to record a vote on their favorite infringements so they can use that when they run for re-election and for fundraising purposes. some will use their vote against the infringements to raise funds, other will use their vote against for fund raising.

I disagree. Madigan controls everything in the house. He has it in his power to see that no other bill gets a vote. If Phelps or any other bill had a chance of getting a floor vote the ISRA wouldn't be trying so hard to stop all the unfavorable amendments in this one.

There will be no freedom in Illinois until the Chicago machine politicians are dead or in prison.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 07:38 PM
The end game is unknowable at this point, until we find out if the state asks and gets cert from SCOTUS.
The State has until May 23 to file a cert petition. I think Lisa Madigan is going to take a wait and see approach, where she watches the General Assembly and gives them a chance to come up with a bill. If the powers that be in the GA cannot get an anti-gun bill passed that they approve of, they may signal to Lisa to file a cert petition.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 07:45 PM
Amendments 6, 7 and 8 have all been adopted.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 09:12 PM
Amendments 1-9 passed.

10 and 11 lost. (University and alcohol establishment votes.)

So students who are 21 and have a CCW will be able to carry right in to the classroom.

And since they eliminated the .08 BAC content and replaced it with their language about "no establishment that dispenses alcohol" people can get blazing drunk and still CCW.

That puts a big hole in their agenda.

Al Norris
February 26, 2013, 09:16 PM
The State has until May 23 to file a cert petition. I think Lisa Madigan is going to take a wait and see approach, where she watches the General Assembly and gives them a chance to come up with a bill. If the powers that be in the GA cannot get an anti-gun bill passed that they approve of, they may signal to Lisa to file a cert petition.

True enough on the petition itself. However...

FRAP 41 comes into play. Madigan must request a Stay of Mandate by Thursday, Feb. 28, else the mandate will be issued on Friday morning. The mandate, is the ruling by the panel.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 09:16 PM
There will be no freedom in Illinois until the Chicago machine politicians are dead or in prison.

Damn, Jeff, I wouldn't expect that sort of hard line from you.

But, thank you, for echoing my thoughts. :)

Trent
February 26, 2013, 09:18 PM
Amendment 12 failed. (No ban in public gatherings, parades, fairs, etc.)

Amendment 13 withdrawn (no ban in places of worship)

Amendment 14 up (public transportation ban)

Trent
February 26, 2013, 09:40 PM
THEY PULLED ALL REMAINING AMENDMENTS AND SKIPPED TO PHELPS HB997

HOLY CRAP!

They threw in the towel!!!!

Warners
February 26, 2013, 09:46 PM
THEY PULLED ALL REMAINING AMENDMENTS AND SKIPPED TO PHELPS HB997

HOLY CRAP!

They threw in the towel!!!!
Wow....that sounds like a good thing.....

Warner

Trent
February 26, 2013, 09:48 PM
Well, there's still 3 amendments up after Phelps's amendment 27, which would gut Phelps and re-institute everything ahead of it.

Also, Phelp's amendment says "as amended", which means the 10 they passed EARLIER prohibiting certain locales would stand...

Trent
February 26, 2013, 09:50 PM
These amendments after Phelp's have some nasty language.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 09:56 PM
These amendments after Phelp's have some nasty language.
Is there live video for this right now?

EDIT: Found it....

EDIT2 - It's REALLY choppy

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:01 PM
Ugh permits go up to $80 from 25.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:03 PM
"This is one of the most restrictive concealed carry bills in the United States, I urge you to put forward a Yes vote."

(This is the shall-issue bill.)

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 10:05 PM
Ugh permits go up to $80 from 25.
And State Police now have 90 days (!) to process applications.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:05 PM
"Everything (amendments) we have done today becomes part of bill becomes law, correct?"

"Correct"

Losing mass transit, schools, etc just became HUGE.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:07 PM
Ugh the stakes are frigging high. Phelps just said "as amended" would he recommend a yes vote?

He answered "yes."

Damn. We got hosed on those 10 amendments earlier.

My OFFICE is within 1000 feet of a damn school!

Birdhunter1
February 26, 2013, 10:13 PM
Still has to go through and be passed by the Senate.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:18 PM
The liberal black legislator is arguing for removal of "Duty to Inform" because he's afraid of police profiling?!

And Phelps is ARGUING against him?

What the hell.

Let the duty to inform die.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:21 PM
The liberal black legislator is arguing for removal of "Duty to Inform" because he's afraid of police profiling?!

And Phelps is ARGUING against him?

What the hell.

Let the duty to inform die.
I'm listening also and wondered the same thing.....

Warner

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:21 PM
I'm betting Phelps made a deal with Illinois State Police about duty to inform, and has to stick to his guns.

Phatty
February 26, 2013, 10:22 PM
I'm betting Phelps made a deal with Illinois State Police about duty to inform, and has to stick to his guns.
Phelps should have just said "duty to inform" doesn't authorize the police to make otherwise illegal stops.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:23 PM
Yeah Phelps didn't handle that one very well.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:30 PM
I love how these anti's talk about "the other side" and their hesitation to propose an amendment because it will get shot down. Boy, now they know how it feels!

Warner

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:30 PM
No private sales are not exempt AT gun shows.

Jesus Phelps. Get with it dude.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:33 PM
Sounds like this dude just wants to bitch about stuff without filing any amendments for the parts he doesn't like.....

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:36 PM
Quoting Thomas Jefferson.....pretty cool stuff...

Trent
February 26, 2013, 10:42 PM
Yeah Phelps is tired. Man they need a recess, they've been at it 9 hours now.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:45 PM
Whenever he get pressured he's falling back on the threat of constitutional carry......which is worthy to remind them of the alternative.....

Birdhunter1
February 26, 2013, 10:46 PM
Rep Ford sounded like he was high.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:47 PM
Rep Ford sounded like he was high.
Hahahaha.....maybe he WAS! :)

Warners
February 26, 2013, 10:50 PM
This dude is talking sensibly....reminding these yahoos exactly what the 7th circuit court ruling MEANS......

Trent
February 26, 2013, 11:03 PM
Shall issue concealed carry in Illinois just passed first round of house readings. 67-48.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 11:04 PM
Appears they have pulled all remaining amendments.

Shall issue CCW made it through round 1!!!!!!

Phelps is talking about removing the "parking lot" restrictions passed tonight in subsequent amendments.

Birdhunter1
February 26, 2013, 11:06 PM
YUP. I like how very few know what it means that it passed in conflict with other amendments.

Trent
February 26, 2013, 11:08 PM
Yeah. It means the bill is unconstitutional if it's not "fixed" now.

So now that we have "defeated" Madigan's play, if they don't bend to remove the restrictions, Phelps can pull the bill and we end up with constitutional carry.

He's got them by the short hairs.

Birdhunter1
February 26, 2013, 11:12 PM
Trent whereabouts in Illinois are you from?

Trent
February 26, 2013, 11:26 PM
Central IL, tazewell county

Mer2112
February 26, 2013, 11:27 PM
This is good news!

Trent
February 26, 2013, 11:27 PM
If a mod happens in here can you change the thread title to something like

"Illinois Concealed Carry Legislation (ongoing)"

We've drifted from the original topic but we have done so along with the legal issue at hand. :)

Birdhunter1
February 26, 2013, 11:35 PM
Or start a sticky on 'IL concealed carry legislation path'

Trent
February 26, 2013, 11:49 PM
I'm trying to formulate a "what's next" and a summary to catch people up.

If I'm wrong on anything please correct me, if I'm missing anything please add to it.

From my perception....

HB1155 is going through for second reading. HB997 also got forcefully ejected from committee by floor vote today. The anti-gun speaker sent it to an anti-gun committee where they tried to bury it, while Madigan rushed out this HB1155 nonsense.

Madigan's push failed, pro-gunners gutted HB1155 and replaced it with the text of HB997.

Meanwhile, the moment HB997 was voted OUT of the hostile committee by the floor, anti-gunners immediately filed a series of amendments that will be voted on in the coming days, pushing for far greater restrictions and "gun free zones" that would neuter the concealed carry capability. One of those (Amendment 8 ) would ALSO kill the home rule provisions allowing Chicago to continue to enforce complete ban, or their own draconian version of a "may issue" bill.

At this point, it's anyone's game.

WE found out today we don't have the 71 votes required to pre-empt home rule, THEY don't have the votes to pass anything nasty. (We're 3 votes shy, so we swayed ONE rep since it went up last time).

So we'll need to bend on SOMETHING to get those 71 votes. (Hopefully, one SMALL something).

Once we get 71 votes, it becomes veto proof (in the house) and can preempt home rule so Chicago can't screw you guys over up north. (One set of rules, statewide)

Now.. the Senate.. that's a different matter entirely. The problem with sending this through the house first, is the Senate can (and probably will) gut the damn thing and add all sorts of restrictions.

Once they do, when it comes back to the house "as amended", the house will get a vote to reject or confirm any additional restrictions or gutting done to the bill. If it's too hostile, they'll vote it down and it dies; enter Constitutional carry. If it's OK, they'll send it off.

Now, once it hits the Governors desk, he'll veto it. Absolutely, positively veto it, unless it's the Madigan-backed bill. He'll probably do this with an amendatory veto (replacing the entire bill with an assault weapons ban, again, or some other such nonsensical grandstanding), which will require a supermajority to override. So then it goes BACK to the house and senate for an override.

We'll need enough votes in BOTH houses to form a supermajority vote.

If all of that fails, and a consensus isn't reached, we get Constitutional carry. Unfortunately this means Chicago can pass any damn thing they want, since we're a home rule state. Then each of those city / county ordinances that crop up would have to be challenged separately in court to vacate them.

Warners
February 26, 2013, 11:56 PM
Great summary, Trent. It looks correct to me as far as I can tell. Now here's my prediction. We get constitutional carry and the people of Chicago get screwed (or stay "safe" depending on if you're pro or anti :banghead:).
I don't live IN Chicago, or go there unless I have to (my wife goes to Northwestern occasionally for doctor visits). I'm NOT okay with the people of Chicago getting screwed, but that's my prediction. I just don't think that all the people who have completely opposite opinions on this can agree to something that satisfies both sides. And since WE have the upper hand here (by virtue of the 7th district court ruling), we don't have to settle for something overly restrictive that absolutely ignores the ruling from the federal district court.

What say you?

Warner

Trent
February 27, 2013, 12:03 AM
I dunno. Constitutional carry is going to suck for more than just Chicago.

Think Carbondale, down state. Mayor is in the Coalition of Mayors Against The Second Amendment (or whatever it's called).

And so on.

Jeff pointed it out either here or in another thread, any city > 25,000 or county can enact their own laws, and it is YOUR duty to understand them and not violate them.

If Dekalb county passes a ban, you carry through, and you don't know about it, you could serve a year in jail and face a stiff fine.

Birdhunter1
February 27, 2013, 12:06 AM
I live a few miles from Carbondale and work in that town, I don't think it will be that big of a problem. The mayor role is that of a weak mayor system and the city council while not all pro-gun would probably not vote in favor of anti-2A stuff like Chicago would.

Warners
February 27, 2013, 12:18 AM
Well, I hope the fear of constitutional carry is enough for the anti's to be willing to work towards something sensible and reasonable. I wish I had more confidence in that happening. I still HOPE that it does, and it did seem like some of the staunchest anti's were coming to grips with the alternative. I don't know....it's really too tough to call, but you bring up some great points about not having a state-wide law, Trent. It WOULD be a mess, no doubt about it.

Warner

fehhkk
February 27, 2013, 12:31 AM
I'm starting to think that no law enacted after the 180 day clock countdown ends, is dangerous, because then any municipality can ban carry or make their own rules (Cook County and Chicago for sure will ban carry).

So, getting 71 votes is crucial. Seems to me were not in that straight-on winning situation anymore.

On a positive note, today it was shown to Madigan that he doesn't have the upper hand to completely overturn this, but I'm sure he's happy to see there's no supermajority.

Elm Creek Smith
February 27, 2013, 12:44 AM
I don't think that a failure to pass a concealed carry law will let local governments ban guns or carry. I do believe that Rahmbo and McStupid would love to do just that, but I don't think the court would go for it.

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

Clinton
February 27, 2013, 01:02 AM
I watched the online live video from noon till it adjourned. Nervers are shot today. I updated illinois right to carry page on facebook as I had time.

Clinton

JTHunter
February 27, 2013, 01:27 AM
What is the link for that live video??

Trent
February 27, 2013, 01:45 AM
JDHunter; you're about 2 hours too late my friend.

However, next time they are debating, go here:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/audvid.asp

You can watch daily updates posted from Springfield here, under the politics forum:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=6

(Threads to follow are usually called "Illinois General Assembly 2/26/2013", for instance; today's thread had 1900+ posts in it.....)

w9trb
February 27, 2013, 09:52 AM
I watched from about 2:30 pm until the thing broke up. I give great thanks to Mr. Phelps and all those who spoke in support and who worked behind the scenes. I personally would have lost my cool at several points and my blood pressure would have sky-rocketed, thereby making me useless to the cause. I really want this to be over and just exercise my rights. I think this is going to end all right, just very aggravating to listen to the opposing Reps being so smug, obstinate and elitist. Again, my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Phelps and the others that are doing the heavy lifting.

C0untZer0
February 27, 2013, 11:20 AM
I'm still steamed about the prohibition on carrying a firearm in parking lots of hospitals, clinics and medical facilities.

The Chicago dems did no research. Jakobssen just introduced the bill like she was told. She couldn't even answer questions about the amendment! What a travesty!

Considering the amount of nurses that have been raped and or killed at knifepoint over the years - that amendment should never have passed.

She probably doesn't even know who Richard Speck is !!!

Why didn't we bring up Richard Speck? A mass murderer, armed only with a knife, who targeted nurses!

Jezz this makes my blood boil !

Trent
February 27, 2013, 11:44 AM
Countzero;

Oh I agree 10000% dude.

The amendment she filed was all of 48 lines long.

And she knew none of it, without staffers prompting her every word (you could hear them talk behind her, telling her what to say, like Wormtongue...)

JTHunter
February 27, 2013, 03:32 PM
Thanks for the links Trent!

hey_poolboy
February 27, 2013, 07:57 PM
And she knew none of it, without staffers prompting her every word (you could hear them talk behind her, telling her what to say, like Wormtongue...)

Love the Wormtongue reference. Very fitting.

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Tapatalk 2

Jeff White
February 28, 2013, 10:45 AM
Local coverage of the debate:
http://www.wjbdradio.com/LocalNews/Concealed-Carry-Legislation-Hotly-Debated-in-the-Illinois-House#.US9oeFdK2Ws
Concealed Carry Legislation Hotly Debated in the Illinois House

The Illinois House completed seven hours of debate Tuesday night on the contentious issue of public gun possession by adopting a comprehensive plan long pushed by advocates.

The 67-48 vote in favor of Rep. Brandon Phelps's amendment doesn't mean concealed-carry got House approval. The Harrisburg Democrat's plan was one of a dozen amendments added to a bill allowing for the carrying of a concealed gun a federal court says Illinois must adopt by June.

State Representative John Cavaletto was among the nearly 50 sponsors from both parties. He quoted Thomas Jefferson on the right to bear arms. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assailed and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides. For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an unarmed man," said Cavaletto.

The measure was attached as amendment 27 and incorporates all of the other amendments that were approved on Tuesday. While it was approved, it now contains a lot of conflicting amendments along with nine hostile amendments that were added. The negotiations will now continue.

Cavaletto noted many Republican representatives and even downstate Democrats felt that with all of the amendments gun owners would be lucky to be able carry weapons in their own back yard.

Cavaletto is my local representative. I had some problems with him when he ran for office based on his performance as the high school superintendent, but he is a solid 2A supporter.

Trent
February 28, 2013, 10:52 AM
Jeff, in about 10 minutes the committee *should* convene...

http://new.livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/1901953

Or audio here

http://www.ilga.gov/house/audvid.asp

Trent
February 28, 2013, 11:06 AM
All the important people are assembling.. Todd from NRA was just chatting up the ISP... this is going to be interesting.

Also, the committee hearing I linked to is specifically to debate an Assault Weapons Ban in Illinois. Forgot to specify WHAT it was for.

Trent
February 28, 2013, 11:09 AM
Illinois state police, talking about Quinn's Amendatory Veto, in support of Governor Quinn, the ISP is specifically seeking to prohibit the sale of firearms designed to emulate military style weapons.

Trent
February 28, 2013, 11:17 AM
73 of 102 Illinois Sheriffs oppose an AWB

powell&hyde
February 28, 2013, 01:28 PM
Just watched most of the committee debate and 1/2 those people on the committee have shown they just want control.

Trent
February 28, 2013, 01:42 PM
Powell, you're referring to the Chicago side. :)

Neo-Luddite
February 28, 2013, 08:05 PM
Jim Sacia is our State rep--he spoke his mind and vented his spleen today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acn-8kFZ7Gc

Trent
February 28, 2013, 10:16 PM
Sacia is awesome.

As a member of the Judiciary board, today, after the Illinois State Police told him there is no reason to own "Assault Weapons", he responded to them (paraphrasing)...

"You seem to be forgetting something here, Lieutenant. The Second Amendment isn't there to protect hunting, sporting, or target shooting. The Second Amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to protect us against tyrannical governments - against US."

He really laid in hard to the Illinois State Police today.

Sam Cade
March 1, 2013, 12:01 AM
And she knew none of it, without staffers prompting her every word (you could hear them talk behind her, telling her what to say, like Wormtongue...)

Bwhahahaha!

Trent
March 1, 2013, 12:28 AM
Oh that SO just hit my Facebook wall 10 seconds ago.

"If anyone is curious for a recap on what went on in Springfield this week, with gun control and concealed carry:"

Most excellent, sir.

BigG
March 1, 2013, 01:00 PM
From the Patriot Post -

The Second Amendment Foundation reports that "the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home." In December, Judge Richard Posner gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment ... on the carrying of guns in public."

Unfortunately, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan showed his contempt for constitutional Liberty by crafting and introducing a repugnant concealed carry bill. In Madigan's world, before obtaining a permit, gun owners would have to purchase $1 million in liability insurance coverage, undergo 40 hours of police-conducted training including 20 hours of range time (just imagine the cost of ammunition), and submit to a mandatory psychological evaluation.
Also unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Friday that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry arms. Gray Peterson, a Washington state resident who holds a concealed carry permit as well as a Florida non-resident one, brought the case. He sued because he frequently travels to Denver, and Colorado doesn't recognize either of his permits -- though it does honor permits from states that reciprocate -- and it doesn't issue non-resident permits. The Court ruled against him, saying, in effect, because there is a long history of infringing the Second Amendment, it really doesn't mean what it says.

Trent
March 1, 2013, 02:55 PM
No action was taken on CCW legislation yesterday or today, house stands adjourned until next week.

They managed to have time to expanding the license plate act to include St. Louis Blues license plates, and today passed a vote on banning cell phone use while driving (hands free only). Today's business did not address the pension crisis or firearms legislation though.

House reconvenes next week.

Al Norris
March 2, 2013, 01:11 AM
Also unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Friday that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry arms.

This is incorrect. The CA10 panel ruled that there was no right to carry concealed. Big difference.

ilbob
March 2, 2013, 11:17 AM
I think this is something that is not completely under Madigan's control. A lot depends on whether he decides to ask SCOTUS to grant cert, and if so, if cert is granted.

Until that issue is resolved most of this is pretty meaningless other than as political posturing, on both sides.

The political realities in the state probably mean he cannot force a restrictive LTC bill down our throats, but he probably can prevent any LTC bill from being enacted if he so chooses.

Trent
March 2, 2013, 12:36 PM
I think this is something that is not completely under Madigan's control. A lot depends on whether she decides to ask SCOTUS to grant cert, and if so, if cert is granted.


Make sure you don't confuse LISA Madigan with MIKE Madigan. Lisa Madigan is the Illinois AG. Mike Madigan is speaker of the house.

ilbob
March 2, 2013, 12:39 PM
Make sure you don't confuse LISA Madigan with MIKE Madigan. Lisa Madigan is the Illinois AG. Mike Madigan is speaker of the house.
No. Mike Madigan runs things. Lisa will do as she is told just like the rest of the Chicago political mob.

Dframe
March 2, 2013, 01:52 PM
Mike Madigan is speaker of the house. Lisa Madigan is his daughter and the attorney general. BOTH are hard core chicago leftists who dispise guns.

GT1
March 2, 2013, 02:02 PM
I don't think they despise guns(They don't go anywhere without armed security). I bet they could not care any less. What they despise and fear, is not being in control of the population.
They prefer subjects, not constituents.

Black Butte
March 2, 2013, 02:25 PM
Make sure you don't confuse LISA Madigan with MIKE Madigan. Lisa Madigan is the Illinois AG. Mike Madigan is speaker of the house.

... and both are equally worthless.

Black Butte
March 2, 2013, 02:28 PM
I believe in bipartisan compromise. Those who voted for Obama should have their guns taken away; those who did not should be left alone.

Trent
March 2, 2013, 08:07 PM
No arguments about either of the Madigans.

I was just pointing out it's Lisa that has to submit Cert. :)

Birdhunter1
March 2, 2013, 08:28 PM
Trent is correct, 2 Madigan's each with a different name and role. Both with the same agenda (on some things).

Mer2112
March 4, 2013, 11:36 AM
Latest batch of Witness Slips that need to be filled out along with a great explanation on setting up an account to make it easier.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35192&#entry421670

w9trb
March 4, 2013, 12:40 PM
I appreciate the heads-up. I registered at illinoiscarry, but for some reason it won't let me post and won't send a validation email. So, I am left out in the wilderness as far as that site goes, but I do read it and have been contacting my Reps and making witness slips.

Mer2112
March 4, 2013, 12:42 PM
Don't worry about registering at illinoiscarry. Read the post and register at ILGA to fill out your witness slip. That is where it counts.

w9trb
March 4, 2013, 01:39 PM
I did. Registration made it simple!

Warners
March 5, 2013, 12:09 PM
Done

Warner

Mastiff
March 5, 2013, 12:36 PM
Done!!

Elm Creek Smith
March 8, 2013, 01:29 PM
Jim Sacia is our State rep--he spoke his mind and vented his spleen today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acn-8kFZ7Gc

I wish he'd stop beating around the bush and tell us what he really thinks. :D

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!