Understood. Since about 40% of the state's population resides within Cook county, it is still notable.
Illinois AG delaying Concealed Carry Legislation with appeal
- Thread starter JRH6856
- Start date
- Status
lilguy
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.
A couple of things about this. IANAL, so take these with a grain of salt, but as I understand it.Y'all are getting up false hopes. Madigan will appeal on 8 June, staying the 7th Circuit's order.
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.
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.
JohnsXDM
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
rugerman07
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.
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.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
I agree with this although not sure about may issue. Hopefully shall issue.
.
JTHunter
Member
Chicago-based rep. Kwame Raoul (sp?) has submitted a bill to allow an exemption to the June 9th mandate. 
: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.
: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.
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.Chicago-based rep. Kwame Raoul (sp?) has submitted a bill to allow an exemption to the June 9th mandate.
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.
Dframe
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.
"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.
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.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.
How do you plan to deal with all the other issues that make legal carry regardless of the UUW law a problem?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
last year an exemption for LTC holders was added at the tail end of the process shortly after I brought it up on IllinoisCarry. Perhaps a coincidence on the timing.
I suspect that "our side" thinks it will be too hard to pass if they put the exemption in up front.
there are some interesting aspects to this that are probably better not discussed in an open forum. I don't really believe the other side is so dumb they don't get it, but no reason to stir things up.
I seriously doubt that a sheriff would be considered the chief security officer of anything other than the courthouse and other buildings protected directly by his employees.I am not sure there is a designated chief security officer for most of these facilities which would make it very hard for someone who does not exist to grant permission.
A search of the ILCS for the term chief security officer found only this reference. Didn't find it in the IAC either.
Last edited:
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
Hypothetical advice for out of state residents traveling thru and packing?
Think "Wisconsin CCW on his way thru Illinois driving to Indiana". No Ill FOID, so what would apply to him when in Illinois under a scenario where no CCW`law has been passed?
Getting darned tired of stopping at the line to unload and lock up.
Willie
.
Think "Wisconsin CCW on his way thru Illinois driving to Indiana". No Ill FOID, so what would apply to him when in Illinois under a scenario where no CCW`law has been passed?
Getting darned tired of stopping at the line to unload and lock up.
Willie
.
JohnsXDM
Member
Hate to say it, but can you say go to jail , and God help you if you were stopped in Cook County or Chicago. Until things get worked out I just would not risk it.
Ditto. Let a few of us downstate get some case law going after the injunction. I know of many who will start carrying June 9th if no law is passed. Some will get charged and go to jail.
We need to make sure the 7th circuit ruling has the teeth we think it does.
We need to make sure the 7th circuit ruling has the teeth we think it does.
At least in regard to the non-resident of IL passing through and not having a FOID card, IL Supreme Court decisions have established that non-residents are not required to have a FOID card in order to possess a firearm or ammunition in the state. If, by some miracle, the state goes permit-free for the purposes of carry of a loaded firearm, the only people that will need a FOID card will be residents of IL. And this will only apply to the UUW and AUUW laws.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
^^ That was my understanding as well.
Going to be an interesting time in Illinois....
Willie
.
Going to be an interesting time in Illinois....
Willie
.
I have been looking around to see if there is any information out there in regard to Section 21-6.
It is worded in a way that covers almost everywhere in the state that isn't privately owned, and in a stretch, even some of those places too (the TIF reference you made).
Here are some things that I think make it problematic to prosecute this in areas other than the obvious like a court house.
Who is the Chief Security Officer? Not defined.
Paragraph A says you need written permission. Paragraph B says they must grant any reasonable request. The fact that one asks in writing and is then refused an answer means the law is being ignored by that Chief. This is a problem in court.
If the broad definition is taken literally, the roads and sidewalks of the state are in fact on public land. If the courts were to accept this definition, this means that everyone who has ever carried a firearm anywhere is a criminal. Even the ILSP publication on how to transport your firearm legally fails to take this into account.
The statute does not contain any exemptions. This means that even the police are breaking the law.
The burden of proof falls to the government in a criminal court, so it isn't up to me to prove I have the permission, it is upon them to prove I don't have it. They would have trouble determining who was the entity that was to give the permission.
Absurd laws are not constitutional, when they lead to unintended results. In this instance, it means that there is a defacto ban on the transportation of a firearm in the entire state on any land that received or is supported by public money. I call that absurd, and a judge would likely see that that law made them a criminal as well, if they own a firearm. A Jury would also see the same thing.
That is why I think the section 21-6 is not likely to be enforced.
It is worded in a way that covers almost everywhere in the state that isn't privately owned, and in a stretch, even some of those places too (the TIF reference you made).
Here are some things that I think make it problematic to prosecute this in areas other than the obvious like a court house.
Who is the Chief Security Officer? Not defined.
Paragraph A says you need written permission. Paragraph B says they must grant any reasonable request. The fact that one asks in writing and is then refused an answer means the law is being ignored by that Chief. This is a problem in court.
If the broad definition is taken literally, the roads and sidewalks of the state are in fact on public land. If the courts were to accept this definition, this means that everyone who has ever carried a firearm anywhere is a criminal. Even the ILSP publication on how to transport your firearm legally fails to take this into account.
The statute does not contain any exemptions. This means that even the police are breaking the law.
The burden of proof falls to the government in a criminal court, so it isn't up to me to prove I have the permission, it is upon them to prove I don't have it. They would have trouble determining who was the entity that was to give the permission.
Absurd laws are not constitutional, when they lead to unintended results. In this instance, it means that there is a defacto ban on the transportation of a firearm in the entire state on any land that received or is supported by public money. I call that absurd, and a judge would likely see that that law made them a criminal as well, if they own a firearm. A Jury would also see the same thing.
That is why I think the section 21-6 is not likely to be enforced.
OP
OP
JRH6856
Member
Roads and sidewalks also have public right of way which may make the difference between them and public lands with no right of way. (I'll leave the details to an attorney.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
