IL UUW Ruled unconstitutional

[Trent]

So, let's tally up the options here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[10/22plinker]

We'll still get hassled by the police--a lot. What kinds of costs would be associated with getting the proper permits?

 

[Trent]

In the event it happens to be HB148 that passes;

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

 

[230RN]

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

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

Terry, 230RN

 

[Trent]

(Note; I'm not particularly a fan of HB148 for various reasons.. fingerprinting, etc. Lots of baggage.)

 

[k_dawg]

Even if 'shall issue', they can set the bar very very high indeed.

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

 

[Phatty]

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

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

 

[Wishbone Ash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-6_Ej9tFnE&feature=youtu.be

 

[spyder1911]

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

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

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

 

[Trent]

Absolutely.

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

We need to tell the ISRA DO NOT do that.

We have them by the short hairs.

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

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

 

[horsemen61]

Bout time y'all catch up

 

[Deus Machina]

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

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

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

 

[rodinal220]

Now the real fun and games begin in Springfield,da machine has many friends and experience in this arena.

 

[Bubba613]

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

 

[Warners]

Here's how I see it...

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

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

OR

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

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


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

 

[JFtheGR8]

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

Anything more restrictive than HB148 will not pass in my opinion.

 

[Trent]

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

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

 

[Warners]

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

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

I COMPLETELY agree. We waiting this long, what's another 6 months?

Warner

 

[PaisteMage]

As Illinois is the place of my birth this is great news.
I no longer live there but always wondered what was the problem of defending ones self was with the lawmakers.

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

 

[Trent]

Oh I want to buy this guy a beer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wtr100]

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

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

I saw ISRA's maximum leader saying we 'bent over backwards' with HB148, maybe we won't be so accomdating this time ...

 

[Trent]

Well, yeah. But Pearson also posted up on Facebook yesterday on the ISRA's page urging lawmakers to push through HB148 as quickly as possible.

Can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

Pearson.. bleh.

 

[Deus Machina]

Ummm, constitutional carry? I think that's far too optimistic.

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

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

 

[Trent]

Unless I'm mistaken...

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

If they do NOT pass something...

That leaves FOID standing.

Not *quite* constitutional carry but good enough.

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

 

[rodregier]

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

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