illinois carry laws

[gunguy1960 2]

Great, we now are officially the state with the least ability to defend ourselves! NRA, lets keep moving up through the federal courts, the illinios case cited US supreme court case which would be just as applicable to us!

[RubberBullets 65]

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/42975-illinios-wins-right-to-carry-lawsuit/page__fromsearch__1

[lunker 274]

Don't fret. Illinois will find a way to skirt the spirit of the law and they'll end up like us. A state where citizens have to beg for a fundamental freedom that is restricted into uselessness, in other words, a "May Issue" state.

[TK421 2]

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/42975-illinios-wins-right-to-carry-lawsuit/page__fromsearch__1

 

I posted the same under SAF vs. NJ because of its relevance to that case only AFTER checking the relevant forums General Firearms Discussion and NJ Gun Laws which at the time did not have any posts regarding the decision That post is in Bucket 3 which is supposed to be reserved for non firearms related topics, perhaps it should be moved and merged with this one in the correct forum?

 

Please note, the intention of this forum is to give the users a place to discuss non gun related topics within a community of friends, on a civil level. Since people have proven time and time again that they cannot treat others with respect on an online forum, here are some rules.

[RubberBullets 65]

but, but, but... its Illinois gun laws

[TK421 2]

Don't fret. Illinois will find a way to skirt the spirit of the law and they'll end up like us. A state where citizens have to beg for a fundamental freedom that is restricted into uselessness, in other words, a "May Issue" state.

 

Illinois is going to be more like California, if they can not pass a shall issue law the may issue law will be applied differently in different counties. Cook County will be libtarded much as all of New Jersey is now but the rest of the state will be better. Think of Illinois as New York City surrounded by Kansas.

[TK421 2]

but, but, but... its Illinois gun laws

 

Correct but this is a 7th Circuit Court decision that is now in direct contradiction to the 4th Circuit Court's decision in the Maryland case. This is almost a guarantee the SCOTUS has to take the case because there are now conflicting decisions. This indeed will effect NJ regardless of the 3rd Circuit Court's ruling on NJ's case.

[diamondd817 827]

 

 

Correct but this is a 7th Circuit Court decision that is now in direct contradiction to the 4th Circuit Court's decision in the Maryland case. This is almost a guarantee the SCOTUS has to take the case because there are now conflicting decisions. This indeed will effect NJ regardless of the 3rd Circuit Court's ruling on NJ's case.

 

4th circuit has not ruled in the Maryland case as of yet. The lower courts decsion in the Maryland case was in line with the IL ruling.

[RubberBullets 65]

Correct but this is a 7th Circuit Court decision that is now in direct contradiction to the 4th Circuit Court's decision in the Maryland case. This is almost a guarantee the SCOTUS has to take the case because there are now conflicting decisions. This indeed will effect NJ regardless of the 3rd Circuit Court's ruling on NJ's case.

 

I know I know.. I gotta boost the sarcasm signal on my internet machine

[johnott 5]

(As I see it) While it is true that Illinois could take the path of NJ, NY or California... the difference is Illinois is currently under legal scrutiny for the "right to carry" whereas NJ and the rest are not. If they were to do what we have done in NJ I think the court would still consider Illinois as trying to subvert the right to carry, as the practical implications would still effectively be a ban for the majority of it's citizens. Therefore Illinois would have to go the extra mile to show the court that they truly have reformed their prior position and are not trying to do an "end run" around the constitution.

[TK421 2]

 

 

4th circuit has not ruled in the Maryland case as of yet. The lower courts decsion in the Maryland case was in line with the IL ruling.

 

You are correct, senior moment, the 2nd Circuit upheald New York's law in November, Maryland was just a stay. Need to get back to my PC, I hate doing this from my iPad, too hard to look up my facts before I post. LOL

[TK421 2]

(As I see it) While it is true that Illinois could take the path of NJ, NY or California... the difference is Illinois is currently under legal scrutiny for the "right to carry" whereas NJ and the rest are not. If they were to do what we have done in NJ I think the court would still consider Illinois as trying to subvert the right to carry, as the practical implications would still effectively be a ban for the majority of it's citizens. Therefore Illinois would have to go the extra mile to show the court that they truly have reformed their prior position and are not trying to do an "end run" around the constitution.

 

Actually that is good for our side, the more they obfuscate and try to circumvent the intent of the court the better chance we have of a clear cut smack down when the next petition makes it's way through the court. At this point pray for the health of the current majority on the Supreme Court, they are all we've got for the next 4 years.

[Midwest 28]

I have read some of the other forums. It seems if it wasn't for Cook County and Chicago in particular. Illinois would already would have a concealed carry permit law in place. There was even some talk about having a CCW law and excluding Chicago/Cook County out of it so the CCW law would pass. But many are against that because a concealed carry permit is needed in Chicago more than anywhere else in Illinois.

 

Another issue Illinois has, is the patchwork of laws (home rule) that varies in some places from city to city and town to town. The state has to pass an preemption law in order for people to carry throughout the state. And that is a battle in itself. But as they say 'one step at a time'.

 

While Illinois doesn't allow for carrying. There are 'exceptions' and 'exemptions' like for police, other law enforcement and some city officials like 'Alderman' .

 

Armed guards have to get certification to be an armed guard it is called a (PERC) card and after that they have to qualify for a "Tan Card" then they can carry but only under some circumstances like the 'one hour rule'. If anyone is interested how Illinois does their 'process'.

 

http://www.icarry.org/ftopicp-6333-.html

 

 

"The tan card is a 20 hour course. The tan card is not ordered by you, it not owned by you. It is ordered through the agency you work for and they own it. When you cease employment, they get their tan card back. You cannot get a tan card without having the PERC and a FOID.

 

It's a well known fact that wealthy businessmen who invest in security and PI agencies have tan cards ordered for them. No, they don't work for the agency but they invest in them and they want something for their investment other than a monetary return.

 

There is the 1 hour to and 1 hour from carry rule. However, those wealthy businessmen are considered "supervisors", keep in mind they don't work for the company at all, and end up carrying 24/7. "

[reloaderguy 30]

DUPE!. This thread is already running in the General section

[gunguy1960 2]

Doesnt this touch every section, every thread, every forum? Good grief people! Get off your blood pressure medication for one day, go to your window and shout, Im mad as hell, and Im not going to take it anymore! And p.s., its all politics.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Don't fret. Illinois will find a way to skirt the spirit of the law and they'll end up like us. A state where citizens have to beg for a fundamental freedom that is restricted into uselessness, in other words, a "May Issue" state.

 

but it's still a step in the right direction, and a BIG step at that

[revenger 473]

What will be important in this case is that the judge gave the illinois legislature 180 days to come up with a law that allows for carrying, What the court does in 180 days if the legislature fails to "craft" a law will tell. Can the entire legislature be slapped with contempt of court? Can the court decide what is to be the law?

[n4p226r 105]

I think the law is just taken off the books thus no carry laws at all. Just carry if you want to

[TK421 2]

What will be important in this case is that the judge gave the illinois legislature 180 days to come up with a law that allows for carrying, What the court does in 180 days if the legislature fails to "craft" a law will tell. Can the entire legislature be slapped with contempt of court? Can the court decide what is to be the law?

 

Basically the judge invalidates the existing law and Illinois becomes a defacto "Constitutional carry" state just like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming. At this point the anti-gunners are under the gun because the pro-carry elements of the legislature hold the high ground, even over the state's Governor. If they don't get what they want, all they need to do is run out the clock and the law just goes away. I suspect however the state will petition for a stay of the judges order to invalidate the existing law while the appeal is pending.

[KpdPipes 388]

Basically the judge invalidates the existing law and Illinois becomes a defacto "Constitutional carry" state just like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming. At this point the anti-gunners are under the gun because the pro-carry elements of the legislature hold the high ground, even over the state's Governor. If they don't get what they want, all they need to do is run out the clock and the law just goes away. I suspect however the state will petition for a stay of the judges order to invalidate the existing law while the appeal is pending.

No, it doesnt..Il will appeal to SCOTUS before the 180 day limit is up and the tntire matter will be tabled and things will remain as is until the Supremes hear the arguments.

[TK421 2]

No, it doesnt..Il will appeal to SCOTUS before the 180 day limit is up and the tntire matter will be tabled and things will remain as is until the Supremes hear the arguments.

 

 

Guess you didn't read the second half of my post...

 

 

I suspect however the state will petition for a stay of the judges order to invalidate the existing law while the appeal is pending.

[KpdPipes 388]

Guess you didn't read the second half of my post...

 

 

I suspect however the state will petition for a stay of the judges order to invalidate the existing law while the appeal is pending.

I read it..and you were wrong.,they dont HAVE to Petition for a Stay, since as soon as the file for Cert by SCOTUS, everything goes into Limbo.

[gunguy1960 2]

May I suggest open carry of water pistols this summer, what wwith global warming and all that, actually I was just trying to defuse the tension, take a breath.

[KpdPipes 388]

May I suggest open carry of water pistols this summer, what wwith global warming and all that, actually I was just trying to defuse the tension, take a breath.

 

has to be a 15 squirt limit though...