1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Illinois AG delaying Concealed Carry Legislation with appeal

Discussion in 'Legal' started by JRH6856, Apr 30, 2013.

  1. rugerman07

    rugerman07 Well-Known Member

    Dart's "may issue" law is only for Cook County should the state fail to pass anything by June,9th. Cook County cannot just inact anything statewide.
  2. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    My suspicion is that this proposal is just about putting pressure on our side to cave to some of the more onerous things that the other side wants in any LTC bill.

    No one on either side really wants the mandate to be issued without some kind of LTC bill in place due to the sheer chaos it would create.

    The Dart proposal is a warning of what Cook County will do if no preempted LTC bill is passed.
  3. Kingcreek

    Kingcreek Well-Known Member

    My suspicion is the same as yours, ilbob.
    meanwhile, Springfield continues to be dysfunctional as always...
  4. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Well-Known Member

    Y'all are getting up false hopes. Madigan will appeal on 8 June, staying the 7th Circuit's order.:cuss::cuss::cuss::fire:
  5. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member

    This is actually the best thing if she does.
  6. HC_Jack

    HC_Jack Well-Known Member

    Understood. Since about 40% of the state's population resides within Cook county, it is still notable.
  7. lilguy

    lilguy Well-Known Member

    I live on the border of cook county. Sounds like I will need two permits to carry, one if I turn right out of my drive way and a 2nd one if I turn left. This is so Illinois.
  8. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    A couple of things about this. IANAL, so take these with a grain of salt, but as I understand it.

    the state does not have to ask SCOTUS to grant cert, but they could.

    Even if the state asks for it, there is no guarantee that cert would be granted.

    If cert is asked for, the state might or might not ask for the mandate to be stayed.

    SCOTUS might or might not issue a stay of the mandate. IMO if they accept the case they will likely issue a stay of the mandate.

    There are a lot of ways this can go. It is even possible that there could be a short period of time where the mandate is in force and then stayed pending a SCOTUS decision, although I seriously hope that does not happen.
  9. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    My guess is that your chance of getting a Cook County permit if such a thing were to come into existence would be essentially zero unless you are a regular political contributor to the machine.
  10. JohnsXDM

    JohnsXDM Well-Known Member

    Chicago Dems are up to no good ! Expect a bill this week or next in the Senate. Very behind the door hush hush as no one has seen any of the language yet. Leaked info says its called a "shall issue" but is really a "may issue" . Increased fees, 40 hrs of training, and a carve out for Chicago. Sounds like they want to pull a Pelosi, pass it then you can read it and find out whats in it !! They are hopeing and pressuring down state Dems to cave in. Is time to get on the phone with your state rep and senator and tell them not to give in to the Chicago machine !! ONE STATE - ONE GOOD LAW
  11. rugerman07

    rugerman07 Well-Known Member

    Here's what I think is going to happen: No agreement will be reached, no ccw law will be inacted. Lisa Madigan will file an appeal with SCOTUS before June, 9th, which will stop constitutional carry from going into effect on that date.
    This is going to be a long, drawn out, ugly affair, and when it's all said and done we'll be lucky to come out of this with a may issue law.
  12. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member

    I agree with this although not sure about may issue. Hopefully shall issue.
  13. JTHunter

    JTHunter Well-Known Member

    Chicago-based rep. Kwame Raoul (sp?) has submitted a bill to allow an exemption to the June 9th mandate. :cuss: :banghead:

    As for Madigan: imagine this - she appeals to the SCOTUS and they agree to hear it. But, in so doing, they also pull in all the restrictive laws in NY, esp. NYC, NJ, CA, MD, etc. If they do that and the People prevail (I'm not going to call it a "win" - there are no winners or losers in this battle), Madigan's career in politics would be over. She would end up being the most hated and despised person, male or female, in the Democratic party.
  14. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    The only people that matter are the voters and the vast majority of voters do not care much about this issue one way or the other.
  15. Dframe

    Dframe Well-Known Member

    This entire disgusting mess can be boiled down to one issue.
    "Chicago DOESN'T want to have to obey Illinois State Law".
    As it is, they exempt themselves from almost every other state law written.
    Rauol still believes in the preposterous idea that "Gun Free" zones actually work.
  16. wep45

    wep45 Well-Known Member

    mike n the boys n gals have tried everything but the foxtrot and the polka. the dance is over and we, in the land of Lincoln, SHALL be packing in three weeks time.:neener:
  17. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    Since the chances of a LTC bill being passed and licenses actually being issued by then are nil, you would appear to be suggesting you would carry based on the court's mandate against the few sections of the UUW law that were challenged.

    How do you plan to deal with all the other issues that make legal carry regardless of the UUW law a problem?
    Last edited: May 19, 2013
  18. wildbilll

    wildbilll Well-Known Member

    This makes for a good discussion. As I see it, if the UUW and AUUW laws are invalidated come June 9, 2013, then it appears that an IL resident that has a FOID card cannot lawfully be charged with a state crime for the mere possession of a loaded firearm.
    I do see a lot of home rule communities on the ILSP website that have their own laws that seem to mimic or actually contain more restrictive language that the state laws.
    I seems that these areas could still pose legal problems to a loaded firearm carrier.
    But it also seems that since the state law was deemed unconstitutional as they ban all forms of loaded carry, these local laws banning all forms of loaded carry would also be in the same boat.
  19. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    just how do you plan to get past

    That "in whole or in part" thing is pretty expansive. It would ban you from carrying in a lot of places. It even prohibits you from having it in your car, even unloaded and encased such places. A lot of TIF districts out there.

    The other side is not dumb. Instead of charging you with UUW, they with just charge you with this, and this one is a lot tougher to fight. At present it is just not enforced in favor of charging UUW.

    By the way, in the long list of weapons in section 33A-1 are things like hatchets and axes, so it is already illegal to bring one of these with you when you go camping in a public park.

    There are also a bunch of home rule units that have various firearms laws that would apply.

    For instance, it appears that somewhere along the way the village of Loves Park enacted this gem.

    It is a virtual duplicate of the IL UUW act.

    One might think that if the courts struck down a few sections of the IL UUW act that it would also apply to similar local laws. And it probably would. After you get a court to agree that it does.

    Dekalb has this buried in its ordinances.

    By the way, this is also illegal in Dekalb

    This would appear to ban you from teaching your kids safe handling of handguns.

    I would be willing to bet a lot of similar ordinances exist throughout the state.
  20. wildbilll

    wildbilll Well-Known Member

    Agreed, it's a minefield.
    The one with the permission required is a misdemeanor. And the logic behind the unconstitutionality of the UUW and AUUW laws is the same logic as to it's constitutionality. I once tired to get this permission from the Sheriff, he merely referred the matter to the county prosecutor and that was the end as far as he was concerned. That law has nothing in it to compel them to give the permission. I don't know the case law that is behind it except for one where the woman had the pistoi in her purse and was going into the courthouse.

    Please take notice that all of the various iterations of proposed CCW laws for IL do not even bother to address the 21-6 law we are discussing. This makes me wonder if there is something missing in that law that makes it irrelevant.

Share This Page