Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Topinka wants legal review of veto
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
Posted in:
* WUIS…
Illinois lawmakers thought they were in the clear after meeting a federal court’s deadline to pass a concealed carry law by Tuesday. But the Illinois State Rifle Association says that’s not good enough.
The Rifle Association believes lawmakers did not meet their deadline because the state’s ban on carrying guns outside the home remains in effect.
While concealed carry is officially the law in Illinois, it could be mid-March before a gun owner would actually and legally be able to carry their weapon in public. The new law gives state police six months to setup a permit system, then there’s a 90-day application process.
The Rifle Association says that delay continues to deprive lawful gun owners of their constitutional rights.
The ISRA’s motion is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:38 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Topinka wants legal review of veto
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So the ISRA is holding its breath and stomping its feet because they didn’t get what they wanted, when they wanted it. Typical.
Comment by Deep South Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:49 pm
I didn’t read anywhere in the courts ruling that allows the state any extra time. I agree with ISRA.
Comment by Nieva Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Good for the ISRA. The legislature has dropped the ball on this from the get go. And I feel Quinn and crew will drag their feet every chance they get. The GA knew the clock was running. Quinn knew the clock was running as well. They should have had a plan in place where this could have been unfolding smoothly. But Illinois leaders can’t do anything Smoothly.
Comment by Fan Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Some people just can’t tolerate success, lol.
The court stayed a permanent injunction to give the legislature time to pass a new law “that will impose reasonable limitations consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.”
Did that not happen? The old law is gone. The new law is on the books. The court didn’t say you could start carrying guns in public on July 9.
Talk about your ingrates.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:55 pm
The ISRA is 100% correct on this - essentially we have constitutional carry until other process is in place - Illinois’ ban died yesterday.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:55 pm
“Gooses! Geeses! I want my geese to lay golden eggs for Easter!”
Comment by Phenomynous Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:56 pm
==The legislature has dropped the ball on this from the get go. And I feel Quinn and crew will drag their feet every chance they get. The GA knew the clock was running. Quinn knew the clock was running as well. They should have had a plan in place where this could have been unfolding smoothly.==
There is a plan in place. It became the force of law yesterday. It is called the constitutional legislative process of the state of Illinois as a unit of the United States of America. If you cannot deal with it then maybe you need to move to a nation-state with a process that suits the exigency of your needs.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:56 pm
==The ISRA is 100% correct on this - essentially we have constitutional carry until other process is in place - Illinois’ ban died yesterday.==
No.
State police: “Citizens cannot lawfully carry concealed weapons without a valid Illinois Concealed Carry License.”
http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/ccw-faq.cfm
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:01 pm
No.
State police: “Citizens cannot lawfully carry concealed weapons without a valid Illinois Concealed Carry License.”
YES ! If there is no process available then there exists a de facto ban which is unconstitutional. They’ve had 6 months to put it in place - dragging their collective feet is not acceptable.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:06 pm
Regardless if the issue is concealed carry, pensions, or legislative salaries, why does everything have to be determined by a lawsuit and settled in court? Isn’t it about time our “leaders” do the their jobs and stop the political games?
Comment by ShermanStateEmployee Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:07 pm
This was a smart move on the ISRA’s part. Even if a court allows the State to ban concealed weapons until systems are in place to implement the new law, it is possible the court may also force the state to speed things up.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:15 pm
===They’ve had 6 months to put it in place===
And it is in place. From the ruling…
===Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law===
The law has been crafted.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:16 pm
Rich - And implemented ?? If someone is carrying a CW and is stopped what is the charge? And the process available for compliance?
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:23 pm
the issue is “relief” Mary Shepard is in the exact same position she was the day she filed the suit — she can’t carry.
The AG in one of her pleadings talked about the right and a right being deprived. Ms. Shepard is having her right deprived. and there are no triggers in the law to ensure compliance. We all know how well they process FOID cards.
The Court gave the State 180 days to comply, then added another 30. The Court also ordered the injunction be issued in its order yesterday.
So the question is what relief does Ms. Shepard get in the interim?
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:26 pm
This issue can easily be addressed if someone were to carry a concealed firearm, get arrested for same, and challenging the current state of the law.
Any volunteers? Anyone? Bueller?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:30 pm
I would assume they would be charged with carrying a concealed weapon WITHOUT a permit. No?
Comment by wndycty Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:31 pm
You should read the actual arguments.
This was kicked off by the SA filing a motion to dismiss 30 minutes after the override. NOT by Mary Shepard or the ISRA… they are RESPONDING to the state’s motion.
Right now they point out that the original ruling found that Mary Shepard could not carry a functional firearm and that the state was infringing on a constitutional right to do so.
They stayed knowing it was an issue that is complex/painful in Illinois.
BUT
The state then in the law did not necessarily resolve the infringement by the end of the stay. Actually a law was passed that give the state 270 more days (9 months) on top of the already passed 7 months to continue to keep Mrs Shepard from exercising a right.
What if it wasn’t 180 days +90 days? what if (as some law makers suggested) the CCW permits would have come 1 year later? or 10? or once the foid system was fixed?
The SA’s motion to dismiss cites cases where the NEW law immediately remedied the constitutional infringement thus making the case moot.
Its an interesting legal argument. I mean if your 1st or 4th amendment rights were being violated, BUT a new law passed that said “the state will stop violating them in 9 months” there would still be a legal question…
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:36 pm
- essentially we have constitutional carry until other process is in place -
Good luck with that. If I were you I’d grab your FOID card and your AR-15 and head down to Michigan Ave., there will be some nice folks real happy to see you.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:40 pm
ISRA is correct in this small window of opportunity. If the state can charge you for carrying without a permit; and at the same time there is no functioning process to actually get a permit; then the state is liable for lawsuits, yet again.
Comment by Gribble Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:41 pm
At first i was inclined to agree that the ISRA was being unreasonable but after reading their brief i am not so sure. What if court ruled state had to have equal marriage but gave 180 days to craft a law but then the state took another 180 days after the first in order to figure out the “details”. If nothing else this will encourage ISP and Quinn to not drag their feet.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:46 pm
I didn’t think for a second that Illinois would gracefully lose this case. I’ll wager this ‘process’ takes a year to get off the ground for those unconnected to the machine. The timeline to get a FOID is written in stone and frequently violated.
Comment by Gribble Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:48 pm
@Gribble
that is one of the other concerns. Right now FOID cards are running 90-110 days but the law says 30 days… The state has 9 months to do this, but there is nothing in the law enforcing that (just like FOID).
This may light a fire.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:51 pm
Ron
Correct me if i am wrong but the ISRA is asking in their relief for basically foid carry under many of the provisions of the new law? I.e. The prohibited places in the bill etc. That makes it seem less like a stunt and more like a bridge to the new law.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:54 pm
The ISRA specifically has been unreasonable and destructive thru this whole process. Why would we expect them to change now?
They just love to cry “victim”, no matter what, and then ask for more members and money.
Thank God we didn’t allow them to destroy any progress in passing a CCW law for Illinois citizens. Other pro-gun advocates were more reasonable and carried the day.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:54 pm
@Mason
That is what I am reading. basically they are asking that until the state can issue permits that an otherwise law abiding Illinois gun owner (FOID holder) could carry following all the other rules in the existing law (no bars, to mass transit, no school carry, etc).
They are allowing that the new law states time, place and manner restrictions that can be followed. But if the state will charge you with a crime for not having a permit that the state will not issue allow FOID holders to follow the law as exists until the permits CAN be issued.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:57 pm
NEWS FLASH: epidemic of stupidly raging out of control in Illinois.
Comment by Buster Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:57 pm
@walkin
—
The ISRA specifically has been unreasonable and destructive thru this whole process.
—
can be said about both sides… plenty on the anti-gun side have been unreasonable and destructive through the process.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:58 pm
Press the advantage. I don’t see the state holding to the 180 days. They can’t hold to the 30 day FOID.
This whole thing is going to continue to cost the state money in legal fees and tie up resources that could be better used on other issues in this state.
Comment by downstater Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:07 pm
Ron
I must say that makes it hard to argue with the logic there. How can the state charge you with having something that they will not issue you? That would be like the state saying it is illegal to run a business with out X but we cannot issue X for 9 months.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:07 pm
@Mason,
I think the 270 day thing is what has folks riled up. The ISP could have been staging, getting forms ready, laying out a plan, etc. But instead got 9 months to do this. VS other states (like Wisconsin) that were processing apps in like 60 days.
Its an interesting question. For sure you have to ask… what IF ISP gets an extension? Says “we can do it, the system is taking too long to build.. we need 6 more months?”
if Mary Shepard’s rights are not violated during the first 6 months wait, are they violated in the 2nd 6 months? or third? Either they are being violated or not correct?
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:12 pm
My prediction is that the ISP will have the forms and procedures in place fairly quickly. I have found them to be quite responsive - I received my FOID renewal within two weeks. And when I purchase a gun the dealers comment about how quickly the background check comes back. One said I must never have done anything “wrong” on the record for that to happen. But the ISRA lawsuit should be an added incentive. And then Rich can continue his high posting counts and traffic on the blog.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:15 pm
Not sure when you renewed your FOID but mine took roughly 150 days from Feb 6 to the 4th of July holiday.
Comment by GTX63 Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:18 pm
===Rich - And implemented ?? ===
The ruling said absolutely nothing about implementation, just passage.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:19 pm
so is that like the NY law that you tout in your commercial, ISRA? read many times that you hated the NY law but now you say that NY has lower crime than Chicago. if you think the NY carry law is effective, please do try to make sure it is put in place in Illinois. you know, cause you want crime lowered, right?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:20 pm
I wonder if the ISRA’s attorneys were able to hide their huge smiles when the ISRA actually agreed to pay them for this.
“Oh yes, this is very important and you have an excellent chance of success…”
The ISRA must have way too much money.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:36 pm
RonO: Agreed. Many on both sides have been unreasonable and destructive to the process of compromise.
Thankfully they didn’t prevail. I view this bill as a fine achievement, by the cooler heads, given a most difficult, partisan,and emotional issue.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:36 pm
Rich
I see your point with the ruling. However it also stated a Constitutional Right was being infringed by the ban. It is hard to say that right is not still being infringed at least until the process is running.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:36 pm
Well, it sounds very much as if another law suit is appropriate. What we are hearing through the law enforcement grapevine sounds as if every possible obstacle is going to be put into place to severely limit access to a permit. A persistent story is that the instruction can take place only on a State Police range with State Police instructors. Count the available ranges and State Police instructors, consider a 16-hour course is required, and you rather quickly come to the conclusion that only a very, very few permits will be issued annually. That was hardly what was bargained for.
Comment by Skirmisher Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:40 pm
This seems frivolous by the ISRA.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:40 pm
===It is hard to say that right is not still being infringed at least until the process is running===
I don’t disagree. And this creates a bizarro world kinda thing for police and prosecutors in the interim.
But the court said what it said. And it even agreed to extend its deadline for 30 days to craft a law. So, the court itself recognized it takes time to get things done. This was a bipartisan, serious bill. It wasn’t some liberal anti-gun scheme to get around the ruling.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:41 pm
Again, all should remember that they are responding to the SA’s filing a motion to dismiss.
There are actually several fillings today. One that asks for immediate remedy, One that responds directly to each point in the motion to dismiss, etc.
You should check them all out.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:43 pm
===you rather quickly come to the conclusion that only a very, very few permits will be issued annually===
Take off your tinfoil hat. Sheesh.
The gun range where I shoot has been working to set up their own class. They have reviewed the bill and have instructors already lined up. They’ll be ready to go as soon as they’re allowed.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:46 pm
Rich
That isn’t what i think of the bill. It is the epitomy of compromise. Everyone can live with it but no one Loves it. for this state it is a good place to start in a year or two we will know what should be changed and what was unnecessary.
When i first read the story i thought the ISRA was being a Petulant idjit on this. However after reading their brief they have a point with the Constitutional Right and they aren’t asking for some wild remedy. Basically all they are saying is let the foid work for permit till ISP ready to go and enforce the law as if a foid is a CCW Permit. Not a unreasonable request in this case.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:47 pm
===Good luck with that. If I were you I’d grab your FOID card and your AR-15 and head down to Michigan Ave.===
Yeah. You really don’t wanna be the first person to test this. Even if you win a court case, jail is a certainty in some areas.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:47 pm
===Basically all they are saying is let the foid work for permit till ISP ready to go and enforce the law as if a foid is a CCW Permit. Not a unreasonable request in this case. ===
That is totally and completely unreasonable. No classes? Are you kidding? No mental health checks? Just grab your gun and head downtown? No way. People need to be trained and vetted first.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:49 pm
===That is totally and completely unreasonable. No classes? Are you kidding? No mental health checks? Just grab your gun and head downtown? No way. People need to be trained and vetted first. ===
I was under the impression the entire FOID database was run through NCIC/LEADS every night. FOID holders are hardly unexamined.
That said, why not honor out of state licensing for IL residents for the duration?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:55 pm
Rich
–That is totally and completely unreasonable. —
Now i agree there is no training which is far from ideal. However as they say in the Brief the State is supposed to have done all those checks in order to issue FOID. The fact that the FOID system is broken is to some extent a seperate issue.
A compromise could be to allow out of state permits to be valid until IL is online?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:59 pm
people please take a breath !! theres really no need to buy holsters and dry fire in your living room from glee, let the small print be evaluated the jostling take its term and this will wash out remember we (2nd amend advocates) havent had anything til now ! no need to cliff walk after 16hours !! sheesh
Comment by railrat Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:03 pm
Mason, are we related?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:04 pm
===A compromise could be to allow out of state permits to be valid until IL is online?===
This is a federal court we’re talking about, not a legislature. Do you really see the 7th imposing its own specific legislation?
Cool your jets.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:12 pm
“Take off your tinfoil hat. Sheesh.
The gun range where I shoot has been working to set up their own class. They have reviewed the bill and have instructors already lined up. They’ll be ready to go as soon as they’re allowed. ”
Well, since the ISP are the ones who have to come up with the requirements for the training classes, and they haven’t yet done that, whatever classes your range has put together are irrelevant.
Comment by Smitty Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:18 pm
Did I say they had completed their work? Plus they’ve been working with folks at the ISP. Again, remove tinfoil hat.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:21 pm
===This is a federal court we’re talking about, not a legislature. Do you really see the 7th imposing its own specific legislation?===
I don’t see the 7th imposing this but instead as a way IL can defuse the issue.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:35 pm
ISP has been working on trying to move on implementation. And have taken suggestions and are being reasonable in our conversations.
There are 5 subject areas that need to be covered of 16 hours, they all don’t have to be covered in a single class. And there are only 2 mandatory subjects if you bank the 8 hours from other courses of being a veteran.
It’s all there in black and white. Not hard to figure out.
I do disagree with Rich on the fact that we here have the FOID card. Were are checked regularly, many of us already carry. those not use to it, are just not use to this and overthink it. We are not cops, don’t need weeks of training.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:42 pm
Would all the “petulance” comments be appropriate for the Voting Rights Act or the school desegregation orders? Just asking. Very few people seem willing to recognize that the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated right, guaranteed in our constitution.
There were millions willing to deny rights to those affected by the court proceedings I listed above, and those people were just as intolerant of their rights. But a right is a right.
Comment by Jville Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:49 pm
Gee, the “compromise” of allowing Illinois residents to carry legally on the authority of an out-of-state CCW permit —where have I seen that before? Oh, yeah, it was part of HB997 - the bill that was worked on by interested parties from both sides - the bill that was squashed by political games on the part of Mike Madigan and the senators who came to the house floor, saying they had a better alternative, which turned out to be NOTHING! The law we got was the result of back room deals after years of open negotiation with the stakeholders resulted in HB997, and the powers that be decided it did not give them enough.
Comment by Indigo Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:52 pm
@ ISRA - Way to stab Phelps and Forby in the back.
–
@ Jville - 2A gives the States the right to a militia (originally, in case there was a need to defend said State against a tyrranical Federal gov’t and/or a slave rebellion) and gives you the right to keep and bear arms (originally, for use in said State militia).
Several SCOTUS decisions (including from current Justices, ie, Scalia) have declared your right enumerated in 2A is not an unlimited right. All 50 states place limits on that right.
With the new law just passed, Illinois falls mid-way in the spectrum of strict/many limits vs. relaxed/few limits.
Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 6:47 pm
“I would assume they would be charged with carrying a concealed weapon WITHOUT a permit. No?”
Bingo! We won guys. Let it go. The real issue after closely reading the new law is that anyone carrying with a license is likely to enter a prohibited area about twenty times a day totally inadvertently. Now that’s a problem to worry about.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:48 pm
@G.
—
2A gives the States the right to a militia
—
go take a new case to SCOTUS and win, then you can proclaim that. Until then its like saying there is no right to privacy, abortion, voting, etc.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:49 pm
Good luck with that. If I were you I’d grab my FOID card and my AR-15 and head on down to Michigan Ave.
You know, anyone big enough to conceal an AR -15 probably doesn’t need to carry down Michigan Ave.
Just saying..
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:51 pm
How were Phelps and Forby stabbed in the back?
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 8:58 pm
–if Mary Shepard’s rights are not violated during the first 6 months wait, are they violated in the 2nd 6 months? or third? Either they are being violated or not correct?–
If you’ll recall, the 7th ruled the law unconstitutional but left it in place for six months.
I doubt they’ll have a problem with the state implementation process.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:05 pm
==I would assume they would be charged with carrying a concealed weapon WITHOUT a permit. No?==
Yes, unless you are A Citizen, in which case you are apparently exempt from the laws of Illinois.
==This whole thing is going to continue to cost the state money in legal fees and tie up resources that could be better used on other issues in this state.==
Then the ISRA should drop its lawsuit and allow the state’s resources to go towards implementing Public Act 098-0063.
==Several SCOTUS decisions (including from current Justices, ie, Scalia) have declared your right enumerated in 2A is not an unlimited right. All 50 states place limits on that right.==
That’s something the gunners don’t seem to understand. Or the fact that almost every right comes with some limits. The Founders understood this based on the laws and regulations they made themselves after they wrote and ratified the U.S. Constitution. Or else the Founders didn’t understand the thing they created and we understand them better today than they did themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised that some of the Founders fetishizers take this point of view.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:18 pm
The court wasn’t too concerned about “relief” when it left a law that it ruled unconstitutional in place for six months. They did so expressly to give the state time to pass a new law that took into account public safety.
Lawyers lawyering, don’t see much to it.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:26 pm
I think that most of the posters here completely overlooked RonOglesby’s comments about the ISRA’s “lawsuit” actually being a reply to a SA’s motion. This is not something new, it is just a continuation of an ongoing case-typical news reporting of something taken out of context.
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:47 pm
ISRA suit olooks perectly reasonable to me—I recognize the bill was a compromise that eventually garnered majority support, but frankly 180 days to prepare forms that already exist in about 40 other States and could be easily adapted is ridiculous and smacks of bad faith. Were I then court I would want to know why this cannot be done in, oh, 30 days, and there would be a VERY steep burden of proff on the State and the ISP to show me why they need longer when we’re talking about the ongoing infringement of a constitutional right.
And 90 days to review, when the person alreay has a FOID? Also smacks of bad faith. Again, I would need a heap of convincing that anything more than 30 days is needed.
I’m going to be rudse and say what everyone knows, which is that one side of this argument, the liberals, have a long history of dragging their heels or just flat out refusing to follow the plain language of the law or judicial decisions require on a host of issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and environmental actions. We all know it, and while I am being terribly impolite to bring it up, it colors all of this.
Comment by Harry Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:08 am
A right delayed is a right denied.
Comment by Confused Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 7:30 am
Are we talking about a Right or a Privilege?
The ISRA is spot on.
They filed and won a lawsuit against the State for denying us our Constitutionally PROTECTED (not granted) Civil Right to Bear Arms.
The ISRA asked for relief from that damage and the Court gave the State seven months to end the infringement.
Yet, the State has not done so and declares that it will not cease infringing on the Rights of Citizens until at least 270 more days have passed.
Many of you talk about negotiations and bi-partisan agreements. Any negotiation of our Rights is centered in restricting them and there should be no negotiation to do so.
Certainly no Right is unlimited, but the 2nd Amendment specifically states that the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Thus any ‘regulation’ that infringes those Rights are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That includes requiring training, applications, fees and permits from the government.
Comment by Keith E. Turner Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 7:36 am
–the liberals, have a long history of dragging their heels or just flat out refusing to follow the plain language of the law or judicial decisions require on a host of issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and environmental actions.–
Another victim heard from. If it’s not impolite to ask, what are you talking about?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 7:41 am
And the ISRA wins, Madigan appeals, round and round we go. Who cares
Comment by Libertyville's finest Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 7:48 am
–Thus any ‘regulation’ that infringes those Rights are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That includes requiring training, applications, fees and permits from the government. –
Nothing in U.S. historical experience, no law, and no court ruling supports your position. How in the world did you arrive at it?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:01 am
@Wordslinger
When the City of Chicago lost in McDonald v Chicago, the City instituted the Chicago Firearms Permit system, requiring live-fire qualification in an ordinance admittedly designed to make exercise of 2nd Amendment rights as difficult as possible. The City then banned the establishment of any shooting ranges in the city. When they lost Ezell v Chicago over this issue, the City then constructed a zoning ordinance that restricted the possible sites for a range to a very few sites, and made the requirements for the construction so onerous that it is a practical ban on shooting ranges. The 7th Circuit in its opinion in Ezell that Chicago was “thumbing its’ nose at the Supreme Court”. Chicago is, of course, a liberal city in a blue state with a long history of being led by liberal politicians. How’s that for just one example of liberals dragging their feet?
Comment by Indigo Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:04 am
The permits will be available before the Court even has a real opportunity to rule.
I routinely wait six months for a ruling on a contested motion.
But this is good business for the ISRA attorneys, and it makes the extremists in the ISRA feel good, so it looks like a great deal for everybody.
The extremists in the ISRA are ALWAYS going to complain. They are always going to call themselves victims.
As much as I support CC, I also acknowledge that many who strongly support it are borderline unstable. Unless you are a long haul truck driver who needs to stop in some questionable areas, if you think you NEED a gun to go about your business you probably are not connected with reality.
And that disconnect with reality is what motivates them to think that the processing times are some great conspiracy.
So go whine, boys. That’s what you do best.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:14 am
Indigo, it wasn’t your posting, but I was curious about “refusing to follow the plain language of the law or judicial decisions require on a host of issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and environmental actions.”
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:15 am
Wordslinger
It seems your dander is already up but a quick question. Do you agree that with this bill whether intentional or unintentional the State of IL has granted itself another 180 day “stay” to continue the ban? I agree that some amount of time will be necessary to get ISP ready. However the root of the argument is pretty basic. If the ban violated the constitution then continuing the ban by requiring a permit while not issuing a permit must also violate the constitution.
Let’s look at it this way if the State declared that Rich was prohibited from running a blog commenting on State Gov. That would violate the 1st Amendment. If the state were to say it needed time to craft a bill to “protect” journalists like Rich (think Durbin) and the court issued a 180 day stay to do so would you think that requiring a permit that would not be available for another 180 days reasonable? I wouldn’t.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:25 am
Mason, I don’t buy your hypothetical 1st Amendment scenario.
Dealing with the real issue in front of us, the 7th Circuit ruled the old state law unconstitutional, yet kept it in place for six months to give the state an opportunity to pass a new law.
Since the court had no problem allowing a law it ruled unconstitutional to remain on the books for six months, I doubt it will have a problem with the new law’s implementation process.
When you seek change through the courts rather than legislatures, you subject yourself to their very slowly-grinding timelines.
On the other hand, if the NRA had the votes to pass a looser law, they would have done so.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:42 am
Word
The court may allow the state the 180 day timeline in fact i would say it is probable. As i said before i expect it to be a year (180 plus the 90 days they will never meet) before i get a permit. However if this is a Constitutional Right as the 7th stated the law did not resolve the issue. I know you disagreed with the ruling however any other right whether 1st through 9th i suspect you would have the opposite opinion.
As i posted to Von if the ISRA simply gets the court to mandate the state meets it’s own timelines that is a win to some extent. As Indigo pointed out Chicago used a lot of hurdles to try and avoid the McDonald decision. It is entirely possible that PQ and ISP Admin will try something similar. If they do having some sort of clarification from the court then it is in the best interest of their members.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 8:56 am
When this bill was passed, everybody knew that it was going to take time.
Where were the strongest ISRA supporters then?
Now after it is passed, people are outraged that it will take time.
By the way guys, there’s also gambling at Ricks.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:05 am
The ISRA was the group that ripped the Newton victims.
The only time the ISRA added value to the process was when they went to the sidelines.
This pleading should not be a response. They’ve never shown any class or dignity or common sense before.
That’s what’s great about the ISRA. When you are looking for them, you know you can usually find them on the low road.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:07 am
Just like with the FOID cards now, the problem with the CCL process is that there’s no recourse for an applicant to take when the ISP delays processing. By law, the ISP is supposed to process or deny a FOID application within 30 days, but they are routinely taking 90-100+ days. When you call, you are told simply, we’re understaffed - ant that’s it. If the ISP can break a state law regarding FOID cards with impunity, why would anyone think they won’t do the same with CCL’s?
As somone elese mentioned, if anything, hopefully this suit will light a fire under the ISP.
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:13 am
–However if this is a Constitutional Right as the 7th stated the law did not resolve the issue. I know you disagreed with the ruling however any other right whether 1st through 9th i suspect you would have the opposite opinion.–
Posner’s ruling did not establish a federal constitutional right to conceal carry. It struck down the old state law prohibiting any form of carriage anywhere, based on his reading of Heller and McDonald (the circuits are split on the question).
He pointedly did not speculate as to how far states could go in regulating gun carriage — calling it “terra incognita” — only that the old law went too far.
I think my consistent point on this issue is that many proponents of conceal carry read way too much into current case law and willfully ignore the country’s history regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Heller and McDonald were landmark decisions because they established federal rights that did not previously exist — namely, the rights to possess arms outside service in a militia.
Those that argue that argue the 2nd Amendment when passed granted a right to carry concealed weapons ignore history.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:16 am
Von
Actually the initial phelps bill had a bridge provision to address this. It was left in the dustbin during negotiations. So there were concerns prior to this. Should the parties involved in this have addressed it then probably.
I may not always agree with the ISRA however i think their argument this time has some merit.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:16 am
Wordslinger
–It struck down the old state law prohibiting any form of carriage anywhere, based on his reading of Heller and McDonald (the circuits are split on the question). —
That is the point by requiring a permit the state will not issue for at minimum 181 days (assuming first permit app is a 24hr turnaround) then the old ban is still in effect.
We could argue forever on what the 2nd does and doesn’t grant and both of us could pull opinions on all sorts of variances. We have before and we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. However the 7th said a ban on carrying firearms violated the 2nd amendment like that or hate that requiring a permit you will not issue is still a ban.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:23 am
Wordslinger - “Heller and McDonald were landmark decisions because they established federal rights that did not previously exist — namely, the rights to possess arms outside service in a militia.”
—-
You are incorrect in your understanding of Bill of Rights. These “Federal Rights” as you call them ALWAYS existed and all free citizens have them. What Heller and McDonald did was affirm that the Government was infringing on these rights and could no longer do so, in accordance with the 2nd Amend.
You believe the Bill of Rights GRANTS us rights when in fact, the BoR imploes that we are born with these Natural Rights and the Government is prohibited from infringing on those rights.
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:26 am
–You believe the Bill of Rights GRANTS us rights when in fact, the BoR imploes that we are born with these Natural Rights and the Government is prohibited from infringing on those rights.–
The Constitution can be and has been amended. It took specific amendments to abolish slavery and grant voting rights to people of color, women and 18-year-olds (apparently those weren’t “natural rights”). And the Constitution is subject to changing interpretations, as Heller and McDonald demonstrate.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 9:36 am
Wordslinger - “The Constitution can be and has been amended. It took specific amendments to abolish slavery and grant voting rights to people of color, women and 18-year-olds (apparently those weren’t “natural rights”). And the Constitution is subject to changing interpretations, as Heller and McDonald demonstrate.”
————–
Again, your misunderstanding of the Constitution is amazing. Quite frankly, I’m surprised you didn’t use the old tried and true “Yelling fire in a theater” line.
The various voting rights acts were ratified by Congress and established as Amendments to the Constitution specifically BECAUSE they were infringing on the natural rights of free citizens. STATES had prohibited various groups of people from voting through means tests or outright denying them the right. The Constitution was amended specifically to PROHIBIT governments (local, state or federal) from infringing on those people’s right to vote. The Constitution did not GIVE women or freed slaves the RIGHT to vote - societal norms PREVENTED them from voting. These amendments put restrictions on the GOVERNMENTS, not the other way around.
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:46 am
LOL, Smitty spin it however you want — up is down, black is white.
But you’re aware that mechanisms exist to change the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:52 am
Furthermore, Smitty, you’re aware that the 13th and 14th Amendments were necessary to abolish provisions within the original constitution that endorsed and protected slavery (so much for natural rights).
What natural right did the 18th amendment protect? Why did it go away with the 21st?
What was the limit placed on government with the 16th Amendment?
And did the 26th Amendment really just recognize a natural right that was being infringed by societal norms?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:10 am
Wordslinger, when you’re already in a hole, you should stop digging. Please put down your shovel.
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:24 am
Smitty, I’m good, and I understand why you can’t answer those questions and maintain your position.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:28 am
Slavery existed in every corner of the earth from the beginning of time. The Constitution did not create it. Since it was legal prior to the writing of the Constitution, provisions were included to protect state’s rights regarding slavery. Does that mean slavery was right? Of course not, but yes, societal norms at the time set that standard. The 13th abolished it and the 14th recognized freed slaves as citizens, afforded all of the protections within the Constitution. The 18th took something away from citizens (alcohol) and the 21st acknowledged that Congress was wrong about the 18th. The 26th - again - PROHIBITS governments from preventing certain people from voting. I think everyone agrees that the 16th was just BAD.
Remember this whole discussion started because you wrongly believe that Government GIVES us rights.
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:48 am
VonKlutz- “The ISRA must have way to much money.” Got it! ISRA was spectacularly ineffective for the past 40 years. Ten years ago Richard Pearson of ISRA spent his time hiding out behind a grain bin in the Chatsworth ISRA
World Headquarters. But ISRA has a ton of money,from years of members and widows leaving them cash, stocks, farms, etc. Pearson runs an insurance business and understands the concept of compound interest. Never even had an office or PR firm in Chicago though.
When Roderick Pritchett was arrested by CPD on the south side of Chicago, ISRA didn’t give him a dime. The only financial support came from John Birch and Concealed Carry, Inc. supporters pockets. No legal or financial help from ISRA for Christopher Morley either.
But ISRA and NRA got trendy and found a model plaintiff in Otis McDonald,and hit paydirt with the Supreme Court decision. ISRA has learned that using politically correct plaintiffs from Chicago pays well.
Pearson fought the IGOLD march tooth and nail, but now he thinks concealed carry is his idea. It will be much harder to recruit plaintiffs from Chicago now that ISRA sold them out by failing to oppose Duty to Inform in Phelps carry bill, and
hushing it up. But that’s the ISRA dirty little secret, they were willing to sell out the folks from Chicago and Cook on DTI,because most ISRA members are from outside Chicagoland.
That’s one of the problems when one lobbyist like Todd Vandermyde represents both NRA and ISRA. No checks and balances on legislative strategy, and who knows what side deals are made when Chris Cox and Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA are 1000 miles away in D.C.?
Comment by John Wednesday, Jul 17, 13 @ 8:23 pm