A civil rights victory
7th circuit strikes down Illinois ban on carrying guns
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 11th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Fifty!
December 11th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
YES!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
December 11th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Finally, in the Land of Licoln…”free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we’re free at last”
December 11th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
free at last….in 180 days. To give the legislature time to re-write the outright ban into a de facto ban.
December 11th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Actually….if the pro-gun guys are smart..they drag this out past 180 days….and concealed carry goes into effect WITHOUT restrictions.
At least, that’s how I see it. But, I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and believe “shall not be infringed.” is pretty clear as written.
December 11th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Reasonable restrictions in the course of public safety… from any elected official, makes my shudder.
Not in a good way. But this is a great start!
December 11th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Cargo. If that happens an IL FOID card would still be required. Which I guess makes that a defacto permit.
December 11th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
I don’t understand how the ruling doesn’t take effect for 180 days. If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, and the government had no authority to pass such a law in the first place. Where does the court get the authority to grant the government an unconstitutional power for 180 days? What would stop the court from declaring a law unconstitutional, but giving the government a year to fix it? Or ten years?
December 11th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
I wonder, guys, how the legislature will go. Concealed seemed to be the bigger problem.
Open carry in open lands, not incorporated, has always been legal. Hunting, plinking, defending against Indians, stuff like that.
December 11th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Divermedic, the Supremes have done a similar thing, in Grutter V. Bollinger, stating that race-based affirmative action in law college acceptance criteria is wrong, but that 25 years, per Justice O’Conner, may be a good time to stop it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
What excuse they may have had in 15 more years (the case was heard in 2003) may be moot, since the Univ. of Texas is undergoing a case right now claiming reverse discrimination. So affirmative action for diversity’s sake may have had only a decade of life.
December 11th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Considering that teh last attempt at a carry law came within three votes of passing, AND that the pro-carry side will be reminding teh anti-carry side that if teh court doesn;t like the law and feels it’s inadequate, they end up, de facto, with Constitutional Carry, I think a reasonable permit law will come out.
Of course, they may try to go with a “Discretionary Freedom” law like MD, NY, or CA, but I suspect that’ll go over like a lead zepplin on retrial as well.
December 11th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
So what happens in 180 days after they’ve sandbagged and gotten nowhere? Will I suddenly be able to carry concealed in Chicago on the beautiful Sunday in June?
December 11th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Please don’t count NJ as one of the 50. Unless you are fellating the governor, your aren’t getting a permit to carry.
December 11th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
What Geodykt said.
Illinois has already got a good shall-issue bill that just barely didn’t pass the past couple years, and apparently it took some serious Chicago-style arm-twisting to keep those last few “no” votes in line.
With some form of carry now mandated the “agin’ it” faction don’t have a lot of leverage to bugger up the existing shall-issue bill. Any “no” that was on the fence has some political cover.
December 11th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
The 9th Circuit just heard oral arguments in challenges to California’s and Hawaii’s discretionary “may-issue” permit policies.
The case for retaining discretionary issue (that has amounted to non-issue in many CA counties and the entire state of Hawaii) wasn’t very strong by all accounts.
The 2nd just upheld Sullivan in NY, but the reasoning resembled the dissent in this ruling, very strained.
At any rate, the threat of immediately being sued over a “may-issue” scheme that is “no-issue in practice” like CA, NY, and HI currently are might also be a stick to convince the hold-outs in the Illinois legislature to just give in to the shall-issue bill currently in play.
December 11th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Matthew, I’m thinking of the Wollard v. Maryland case requiring a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a handgun might wind up driving “May Issue” to the Supreme Court, since we have two Federal Courts disagreeing on the same thing.
Unless TPTB in Maryland can be talked into taking their lumps and not appealing. Remember, Heller wouldn’t have made it to the Court if DC Mayor Adrian Fenty hadn’t insisted on appealing all the way up the chain, hoping for a reversal.
Of course, how long it would take to get to the court and what the makeup of the court would be by then is anybody’s guess.
December 13th, 2012 at 4:13 am
I don’t disagree about the circuit split. Since the rulings against “bearing” being fundamental rest, in my opinion, on the lower courts telling Scalia what he meant, I can see the current court expediting review.