Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
spanishjames
New member
Al Norris, thanks for the info. Since voting on IL HB148 was postponed for lack of enough yes votes, I thought the bill would have to be weakened in order to get those votes, hence the fear of May Issue. Illinois is the last state to allow CCW. But when I hear about the laws and regulations in NY, NJ, and CA regarding such, which are mostly May Issue States, I cringe at the thought of having to prove a need, and have a law similar to theirs.
I become discouraged knowing that the only thing holding this up is ignorance, political correctness, and a complete disregard for the freedom of choice when it comes to personal protection.
So what, if anything, are our representatives trading in order to get those yes votes?
p.s. Here's a link to a nicely animated map of the progression of CC Laws in the US on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
I become discouraged knowing that the only thing holding this up is ignorance, political correctness, and a complete disregard for the freedom of choice when it comes to personal protection.
So what, if anything, are our representatives trading in order to get those yes votes?
p.s. Here's a link to a nicely animated map of the progression of CC Laws in the US on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
There are no trade offs that I'm aware of.
And 148 is OC AND CC.
They were only 3 or so votes short of passing 148 last time. If current law gets struck down, why would pro-gun politicians make huge concessions? You don't make HUGE concessions when you are on the side with winning momentum.
I think we will see something that looks a lot like 148 with only some minor changes to it.
And 148 is OC AND CC.
They were only 3 or so votes short of passing 148 last time. If current law gets struck down, why would pro-gun politicians make huge concessions? You don't make HUGE concessions when you are on the side with winning momentum.
I think we will see something that looks a lot like 148 with only some minor changes to it.
I doubt Chicago would be able to get away with that. SCOTUS already found in McDonald that 2A was incorporated against both states and localities through the Due Process Clause of 14A. Assuming that SCOTUS rules that a ban on carry is a violation of 2A, that would also be incorporated under McDonald.
ode to Judge Sue Myerscough
Oh I'm stuck here waiting
For Judge Myerscough, to displel the lies that the antis pass off
That in Illinois there is right to bear arms...
But just not outside of our homes or our farms
As long as we don't go outside with our guns
We can still shoot at ranges and clubs and have fun
The state says their sensible laws should remain
In the meantime, to thugs we are all easy game..
They've argued their sensible laws do no harm
So I'm waiting for when I too can bear arms..
Oh I'm stuck here waiting
For Judge Myerscough, to displel the lies that the antis pass off
That in Illinois there is right to bear arms...
But just not outside of our homes or our farms
As long as we don't go outside with our guns
We can still shoot at ranges and clubs and have fun
The state says their sensible laws should remain
In the meantime, to thugs we are all easy game..
They've argued their sensible laws do no harm
So I'm waiting for when I too can bear arms..
Terminus009
New member
Gee whiz! What's taking that judge so long to make up her mind? I guess she is taking her time to write her decision, dotting the "I"s and crossing the "T"s.
In both Shepard and Moore, the State filed notices of supplemental authority as soon as the Kalchalsky dismissal came out.
David Jensen didn't waste any time in making his response (I posted the link in the 2A Cases thread, along with some other info).
The NRA (Shepard)? lagging behind, I'm afraid.
David Jensen didn't waste any time in making his response (I posted the link in the 2A Cases thread, along with some other info).
The NRA (Shepard)? lagging behind, I'm afraid.
I read through the 2A thread and the Kachalsky, but I don't know what this means ^
It seems like Kachalsky case for the time being has gone against us, and the State of IL is trying to reference it in the Moore case and Jensen is saying Kachalski doesn't apply to Moore v Madigan?
It seems like Kachalsky case for the time being has gone against us, and the State of IL is trying to reference it in the Moore case and Jensen is saying Kachalski doesn't apply to Moore v Madigan?
Last edited:
Kalchalsky is a carry case. It is a carry case that involves the discretionary issuing of a carry permit.
In Moore (and also Shepard), the issue isn't about a discretionary issuance of a permit. The issue is a complete ban on carrying an operational defensive firearm in any form (open or concealed).
In his reply to the notice, Attorney Jensen simply states that the decision in Kalchalsky has no bearing whatsoever on the issues facing the court in Moore. David Jensen goes even further. He is saying that if this is all the State has, then he welcomes the States Notice of Supplemental Authority, as it bolsters his own case against the State of Illinois.
He's right. The State, by submitting this case as an authority is implicitly acknowledging that the State has no permit and that there is in fact a complete ban on exercising a fundamental right.
In the case of Palmer and Woollard, Alan Gura has shown how the Kalchalsky decision flies in the face of historical analysis as commanded by the Supreme Court in Heller and the 7th Circuit in Ezell.
The Judge in Kalchalsky was very stupid. She let her emotions and bias override her judicial demeanor. We have seen this in some of the past decisions at district court, but never to this extent.
In Moore (and also Shepard), the issue isn't about a discretionary issuance of a permit. The issue is a complete ban on carrying an operational defensive firearm in any form (open or concealed).
In his reply to the notice, Attorney Jensen simply states that the decision in Kalchalsky has no bearing whatsoever on the issues facing the court in Moore. David Jensen goes even further. He is saying that if this is all the State has, then he welcomes the States Notice of Supplemental Authority, as it bolsters his own case against the State of Illinois.
He's right. The State, by submitting this case as an authority is implicitly acknowledging that the State has no permit and that there is in fact a complete ban on exercising a fundamental right.
In the case of Palmer and Woollard, Alan Gura has shown how the Kalchalsky decision flies in the face of historical analysis as commanded by the Supreme Court in Heller and the 7th Circuit in Ezell.
The Judge in Kalchalsky was very stupid. She let her emotions and bias override her judicial demeanor. We have seen this in some of the past decisions at district court, but never to this extent.
In Shepard v. Madigan (NRA case), we've had cross-motions for summary judgment hanging around and a motion for a preliminary injunction, just sitting out there. On 9/2, the defendants filed a Motion to Defer a Ruling on the Existing MSJ.
This motion says that the State needs time to effect Discovery... Since the entire suit "is a pure issue of law that requires no discovery", discovery is a stall tactic. Go back and see what happened in Benson and you'll see what Madigan is trying to do.
Yesterday, the plaintiffs filed their Response to Motion to Defer Ruling.
This is a 4 page brief, in which the plaintiffs NRA/Shepard is calling out the defendants stalling tactics.
This motion says that the State needs time to effect Discovery... Since the entire suit "is a pure issue of law that requires no discovery", discovery is a stall tactic. Go back and see what happened in Benson and you'll see what Madigan is trying to do.
Yesterday, the plaintiffs filed their Response to Motion to Defer Ruling.
This is a 4 page brief, in which the plaintiffs NRA/Shepard is calling out the defendants stalling tactics.
"And in their Motion to Defer Ruling on Summary Judgment, Defendants
expressly state that the Court may decide this Second Amendment question “without the use of
extrinsic evidence.” Doc. No. 47 at ¶ 3 (emphasis added)."
Duh ... Defendants expressly state the error in their Motion to Defer, i.e., the court may decide the issue of law without the use of extrinsic evidence of facts, but please give us some months (years?) to find that evidence the court doesn't need.
expressly state that the Court may decide this Second Amendment question “without the use of
extrinsic evidence.” Doc. No. 47 at ¶ 3 (emphasis added)."
Duh ... Defendants expressly state the error in their Motion to Defer, i.e., the court may decide the issue of law without the use of extrinsic evidence of facts, but please give us some months (years?) to find that evidence the court doesn't need.
I know this is unrelated, but to think that my tax dollars go to pay the salaries of such inept, incompetent bungling boobs...
I guess though that for me as a citizen desiring to fully exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights, it's to my advantage that the state is rife with ineffectual lawyers.
I guess though that for me as a citizen desiring to fully exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights, it's to my advantage that the state is rife with ineffectual lawyers.