Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

D

Davey

New member
With HB148 it'd be a combination of the ISP and your county's sheriff. As long as you pass the background checks you get one. There would be no discretionary power by any one.

Read the whole bill at www.ilga.gov. Just type in HB148 in the box at the left.
 
M

maestro pistolero

New member
I'm just wondering how the administration of it will be handled.
Click to expand...
It would be great to get a court decision immediately stopping all enforcement against non-prohibited persons. There could be a period of constitutional carry until the bureaucrats could get their ducks in order. Chaos. I tell you! Utter chaos! :D
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
Even if these suits were settled tomorrow and people in Illinois were deemed to have the right to carry. It doesn't over-ride ALL existing firearms regulations. So hypothetically speaking - people who did not have Illinois FOIDs who had firearms on their persons could be arrested (I think).

The FOID system in it's entirety would have to be ruled unconstitutional and I don't think that is what is at issue here. I could be wrong...

Also, HB148 does not throw out the FOID system as far as I can see.
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
It would be funny if the two laws had no connection or linkage.

You could have people who get approved to carry under HB148 - but because they don't have a FOID they can't buy a gun or ammunition !
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
While we are awaiting a response to Moore's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction from the court, today, Moore filed its Opposition to #24 Motion to Dismiss.

There is much to say about David Jensen's writing. I'm really starting to like his "let slip the dogs of war" style.

From the first paragraph:

If the right to bear arms exists outside the home, then the State’s motion fails. If the right is homebound, then Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief. Everything turns on this one question.
Click to expand...

From the concluding paragraph:

The only real question is whether the right to possess and carry weapons for confrontation applies outside the home. Plaintiffs submit that after Heller, the answer to this question is “written on the wall.” A law that prohibits conduct that the Constitution affirmatively protects is (by definition) unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
D

Davey

New member
The response to the motion to dismiss was a good read. Seems pretty solid. Points out all of the state's errors in their arguments.

We're all waiting very patiently over here for the judge's ruling. Any day now...
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Over at the Shepard case (NRA), they filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on Aug 8th, and their Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss on the 15th.

Not the same quality we have grown used to with the Gura and Jensen briefs, but good reads nonetheless.

What gives me more hope, is the the behemoth that is the NRA, is slowly learning how this "game" of civil litigation works. It is easy to contrast the Shepard (new style) filings with that of Benson (old style).

Even Stephan Halbrooks recent filings have taken on a new character. That is nothing but pure goodness, as Halbrook is a terrific litigator!
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
It would be great to get a court decision immediately stopping all enforcement against non-prohibited persons. There could be a period of constitutional carry until the bureaucrats could get their ducks in order.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold my breath based on the way Chicago (the ones who've been preventing CCW in IL all along) seems to have been doing things. Chicago actually replaced their draconian gun ban with a slightly less draconian set of regulation once the writing was on the wall about McDonald. While Chicago politicians like to drag their feet when the situation suits them, they can also ramrod things through very quickly when they feel they need to. I think that may-issue or even shall-issue is probably preferable to constitutional carry in the eyes of CCW obstructionists like Gov. Quinn and Speaker Madigan (the IL AG is the daughter of the Speaker of the House hence the same last names), so I wouldn't be suprised to see a CCW law passed with lightning speed if it looks like either of these cases isn't going the state's way.
 
A

aarondhgraham

New member
Lightning speed,,,

so I wouldn't be suprised to see a CCW law passed with lightning speed if it looks like either of these cases isn't going the state's way.
Click to expand...

My bet would be that the legislation is already written,,,
And sitting in someone's computer waiting until it's needed,,,
My money would also be on it's containing as many roadblocks as possible.

Call me cynical but until some agency will prosecute legislators for ignoring a high court ruling nothing will change.

SCOTUS is often merely a paper tiger,,,
Yes they can make a ruling,,,
But who enforces it?

It usually takes another court case,,,
And even then there is still minimal if any enforcement.

Aarond
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
If it looks like the courts will rule against against Illinois - it doesn't mean that everyone lines up and votes "Yes" for HB148. It also doesn't mean they rush and put in draconian laws designed to subvert the spirit of the ruling.

Illinois is not Chicago. Many times - and certainly on the gun issue, Chicago is politically monolithic. It is a machine with a driver at the wheel (at times). But the state of Illinois is not like that. So it's not as if the legislature - seeing that current IL law is going to be ruled unconstitutional - can just sit down in a session and create restrictive anit-gun laws that pass constitutional muster.

The difficulty will arise when alternates to 148 are proposed.

It no longer becomes a straight up or down vote. You have a a situation where a gun bill that allows cc is voted against by pro-gun politicians because it has provisions in it like "may issue". You also have a situation where politicians who are really anti-gun can can avoid getting branded as anti-2A in the eyes of the general public and can go on the radio and say "we voted for reasonable legislature that would allow Illinois citizens to carry a weapon for self-protection - but that was rejected."

All in all, it doesn't look good for anti-gun politicians in Illinois to be the last state in the entire union to not allow some for of carry. In a sense there is already a victory for gun rights advocates because it looks increasingly like we're heading toward the end-game of how the right to carry will be regulated, and that is a huge difference from the question of if Illinois citizens will be allowed to carry.
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
Spanishjames, your fears are premature and largely unfounded (don't be confused, I'm not saying your fear is unreal). Consider:

Richards v. Prieto --> 9th Circuit <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law.

Peruta v. San Diego Cnty --> 9th Circuit <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law.

Peterson v. Garcia --> 10th Circuit <-- Challenges permit system that doesn't allow visitors (non-residents) to carry.

Kachalsky v. Cacase --> US District Court (USD) for So. N.Y. <-- Challenges "May Issue" laws.

Mishaga v. Monken --> USD Central IL <-- Similar to Peterson, but different because of IL FOID and non-issuance to visitors.

Woolard v. Sheridan --> USD Maryland <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law.

Muller v. Maenz --> USD New Jersey <-- Challenges arbitrary "May Issue" law.

Smith v. Nelson --> USD S. Dakota <-- Challenges non-issuance to Resident Aliens. Win. Injunction Issued.

Fletcher v. Haas --> USD Mass. <-- Same as Smith, above.

Osterweil v. Bartlett --> USD No. N.Y. <-- Challenges licensing of non-residents.

Scocca v. Smith --> USD No. CA. <-- Equal Protection in licensing of similarly situated indiviuals.

Masciandaro v. US --> Seeking Cert <-- Does 2A apply outside the doorstep.

Williams v. Maryland --> Seeking Cert <-- Does 2A apply outside the home when permitting system is so arbitrary as to deny regular citizens.

This is just the list of cases that will directly affect how IL goes.

If either of the two cases seeking cert are granted, all other cases will win. "May Issue" will be a thing of the past. All States will have to allow some form of carry, that is not arbitrary or capricious in nature.

Winning any of the other cases first, will provide persuasive precedent for any of the rest, as regards arbitrary "May Issue" licensing/permitting... In other words, "May Issue" will become virtual "Shall Issue."
 
D

Davey

New member
No reading necessary...kinda.

post-195-131372384706.jpg
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
Is there an Illinois mandated 72 hour waiting period on delivering court rullings on cases concerning Illinois gun laws? :(
 
P

Patriot86

New member
lol good one count.



I am far from a legal expert, but if the Supreme Court rules against Illinois in these main cases would or could the rulings leave it open for localities and municipalities to ban people from conceal carrying? If so I would imagine it is not a stretch that we will see Chicago ban or somehow severely restrict it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top