Illinois concealed carry ban maybe Overturned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rights V. Priviledge

Driving is a priviledge a drivers license is a right if you can meet qualifications.
 
Last edited:
Free speech is a right but you sometimes need to get a permit to do it in public.

NukemJim
 
Restrictions

Almost all of our rights come with some restrictions. Our second amendment rights for example come with restrictions. Our priviledges also have rules and regulations attached. If they were not governed by restrictions maybe we would not have them at all.
 
We pay for the right to drive on the highways with our license plate fee. In some states the right to park and drive on the city streets with a sticker fee. If the fee to CCW is a one time fee, not bad, but watch for a recurring fee, not good.
Click to expand...

Actually, the fact that you have to take any sort of action to be able to perform said action means it's a privilege.

You have to do something to have a right taken away. You have to do something to be able to have a privilege.
A driver's license is a privilege... You are not guaranteed one. You have to prove competency. A FOID is a right, you have to have had your right revoked via due process to be denied one (which is why the FOID card makes no sense). If you have had the right own firearms removed via due process, it will be in your permanent record and it will show up when a NICS is ran. The FOID is nothing but a default registration of gun owners in IL (not guns).
 
snubbies said:
We pay for the right to drive on the highways with our license plate fee. In some states the right to park and drive on the city streets with a sticker fee. If the fee to CCW is a one time fee, not bad, but watch for a recurring fee, not good.
Click to expand...

And pay - - and Pay - - and PAY!!
In just one year, the tag for my pickup went from $86 to $106 - a 23% increase!
 
Some of the logic here stuns me.

If you want to live in the woods and never ever in your life intend to take advantage of anything paid for by public funds, then have at it. That accounts for exactly zero percent of our population.

By contrast, if you want to take advantage of highways, roads, and streets paid for by public funds, then you can expect some restrictions when you take advantage of the conditions made available to you. After all, that road isn't just yours. It's also mine. You don't get a veto power over me. I don't want to have to pay money to provide a service that you get to use to my disadvantage.


If you disagree, then don't complain if I park right in front of your driveway, blocking your access to the street. If you don't want me to veto you, then don't complain about my vetoing you.

So we all have a right to move within and between states. Absolutely true. But neither the federal government nor any state or local government has any obligation to build highways or roads that make that movement possible. If you want to take advantage of those highways and roads, then don't be surprised if your privilege--not right--to take advantage of those highways and roads has some limitations. For example, don't be surprised if you can't drive as fast as you might like. Think of it this way: I'm paying for the road on which you're driving. I also get to use that road. I don't want some knucklehead driving 150 miles per hour on a road supported by tax dollars that I'm paying. My position on that issue is hardly obnoxious or controversial.

I own firearms and support our rights under the Second Amendment. But the fact that we have some rights under the Second Amendment doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want in regard to our possession of firearms.

I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. In fact, my ACLU card identifies me as a "Guardian of Liberty': I've literally paid the dues. But I recognize that the fact that I have a right to speak does not mean that I always have a privilege to speak.

I think that we could all benefit from thinking carefully on the difference between rights and privileges. I have a right to speak. I do not always have a privilege to speak. I have a right to bear arms. I do not always have a privilege to bear arms.

For what it's worth, the ACLU does not take a formal position on the right to bear arms. Maybe it should. But if you're automatically opposed to the ACLU, perhaps you should reconsider. The ACLU is a strong proponent of our First Amendment rights. Your right to advocate for your Second Amendment rights depends fundamentally on your First Amendment rights. If you want to exercise your First Amendment right to advocate in favor of your Second Amendment rights, perhaps you should support the ACLU.
 
If you disagree, then don't complain if I park right in front of your driveway, blocking your access to the street.
Click to expand...

You're talking about anarchy, many here are talking about being able to carry a gun without being hassled or having to pay to exercize their right. Apples and oranges.

For what it's worth, the ACLU does not take a formal position on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

They clearly do, its on their website:

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Click to expand...

They are clearly anti 2nd amendment. Possession of a gun is not a civil liberty according to the ACLU.
 
Dave Workman said:
This is the SAF case, and Alan Gottlieb tells me that he's waiting for a ruling perhaps sometime next week.
Click to expand...
There has been a lot of speculation on Illinoiscarry about the Moore case.

There seems to be a fair number of people who think that the day after the ruling is announced that it will be OK for them to strap on their handguns and walk around the streets of Chicago.

I think they are going to be very shocked at how limited this ruling will be as a practical matter, even if we get everything asked for.

I personally do not expect to get a PI, and I think that whatever we get will take 2-4 years to become meaningful if it is not mooted by other cases that are already farther along in the court system.

In some respects this seems to me to be like opening up another front to draw attention away from where the real attack is.
 
Most people know that things will not change overnight. For every verdict that comes down to show that Illinois chooses to totally disregard the second amendment, and is wrong for doing so is a win. There is a lot of work to still be done to give the people of IL the rights they should have had all along. So everyone should keep up with what is going on with the court cases. Knowlge is the best defense against the anti crowd.
 
Chicago Distortions

I have lived in the CHicago kingdom of the Daily and now the succesor monarchs regime for more years than I will admit. They will come up with so many hoops to jump through you will not have real 2nd amendment rights. It surely will never become a gun owners paradise.
 
Sharecropper - do you like paying your home mortgage as well as your neighbors? Do you like paying for a corrupt and crooked political system that squanders money like rainfall in a desert?
Of course you don't - and why should you!
That is what many of the people here are alluding to and we have seen it in so many of our state politicians over the years. The myriad ways they subvert the law at our expense, or pay themselves outlandish salaries for so little work, is part of the reason so many people are angry and disillusioned with both political parties. We are tired with them messing up our lives, our way of life, and our Constitutional Rights.
 
JTHunter, figure out how much you pay to corporations as opposed to government. Figure out the ways that corporate officers subvert the law at your expense and pay themselves outlandish salaries for so little work. Ask yourself why the GOP touts tax cuts for the rich--but not for the middle class and the poor.

The wealthy have you bamboozled. Can government be improved? Sure. But far more of your money goes to corporations. You just think you're getting a fair shake from corporations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top