Concealed Carry in Illinois

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I stated in my first post in this thread that you were correct about IL's new law not accepting non resident permits. We have no argument there.

When a law banning something is overturned there is no law to prosecute under. When there is no enforceable law to prosecute someone, then the activity is LEGAL. Spooky, show me a law that allows you to mow your lawn! There is none, and you cannot link to it because it does not exist.

There is no law that allows everyone in Vermont to carry a gun. There is no law AGAINST IT. It is, therefore, LEGAL.

Now we are done with the CC portion of the topic. Happy now?

There was no law allowing CC in Illinois. The 7th Court ruling mandated that the state pass CC laws within 180 days. It did not suddenly give anyone with an out of state permit the right to carry concealed. Right at this very moment there is no CC carry allowed to residents or non residents nor did suddenly on December 12, 2012 did it become so. It's in process, which is exactly what the Court ruling dictated. Illinois dragged their heels and stomped their feet, but had no choice but to comply.

I've provided a variety of credible sources on this matter. The circle talk doesn't add to the topic.

Edited February 8, 2014 by spookyturtle

[TBoneTX 47,546]

(Edited from earlier)

After the removal of some posts that were chiefly bickering, and closure of the thread, the thread is reopened. Everyone is urged to contribute meaningfully to the topical matter and to keep the thread moving forward with good discussion and thoughtful debate. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

Edited February 9, 2014 by TBoneTX

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

(Edited from earlier)

After the removal of some posts that were chiefly bickering, and closure of the thread, the thread is reopened. Everyone is urged to contribute meaningfully to the topical matter and to keep the thread moving forward with good discussion and thoughtful debate. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

Thank You sir. You are a darn good mod, although saying that even mockingly may hurt your career here in the Twilight zone

Now I think Marvin and I were discussing GZ, correct?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Just watching two people go back and forth is no debate. Taking out mine and others here comments has lessened the importance of this thread. It was better to kill it.

(Edited from earlier)

After the removal of some posts that were chiefly bickering, and closure of the thread, the thread is reopened. Everyone is urged to contribute meaningfully to the topical matter and to keep the thread moving forward with good discussion and thoughtful debate. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Thanks Spooky

You are correct, Under the law as implemented IL will not honor other states licenses

The 7th Circuit Court ruling strick down IL's ban on carrying firearms. The day after the ruling there was NO LAW which was enforceable to prevent ANYone from carrying conceaeld handguns. On that day IL became exactly like Vermont. But there is more...

The two cases appealed (combined in one) came from IL residents being arrested while carrying concealed handguns pursuant to licenses issued by other states. The court vacated those charges and states that IL CANNOT impose a blanket prohibition on carrying concealed. The two people charged with a crime were acquitted as the law they were charged under was ruled unconstitutional.

Again,,,at that tiome Il had NO law under which it could prosecute ANYONE for carrying a concealed handgun. The court gave the state 180 days to develop its own law and gave directions on how that should be done. It specifically ruled out a "may issue" system such as NY and MA have.

On February 13, 2013 the State Attorney General advised that IL would not be appealing the case, would create its own CC law following the orders of the court and UNTIL THE TIME IL LICENSES WERE ISSUED would not prosecute anyone carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to a license from another state,

Now that thay have their OWN licenses, IL will not recognize other states licenses. For the period which was questioned "How could CC reduce crime in 2013 when the licenses are only NOW being issued?" THAT is the answer.

This is a common condition. The law which resulkted in the Roe v. Wade decision is STILL the law. It canno tbe enforced. If Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow, abortion would be illegal in TX immediately. Your health insurance is probably in violation of the ACA, but enforcement of the ACA has been delayed for a year. The court stayed its order for 180 days for Il to make its on law but what would be the point of prosecuting anyone else under a law ruled unconstitutional?

From December 12, 2012 until the new licenses began being issued anyone in IL with a CC license could carry concealed. THAT is how it reduced crime in Chicago. The crime rate will go down moe as more residents are licensed. Some people are not happoy with reduced crime as it works against their agenda of violating the rights of minorities. They just need to get over it.

Here are some interesting quotes from the ruling. There are three more gun law cases in the hopper for the SCOTUS, 1 this year, 2 next year.

_____________________________________________________________________

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,while compelled by

McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in

Heller and McDonald

It is not a property right a right to kill a house guest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried in public than just kept in the home. But the other side of this coin is that knowing that many law-abiding citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals timid.

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law. Bishop,

supra

, at 922–23; Mark V. Tushnet,

Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns

110–11(2007). Anyway the Supreme Court made clear in

Heller

that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts. 554 U.S. at 636.If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban,

Heller

would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois

And a ban as broad as Illinois’s can’t be upheld merely on the ground that it’s not irrational.

Ezellv. City of Chicago

, 651 F.3d 684, 701 (7th Cir.2011);

United States v. Yancey

, 621 F.3d 681, 683 (7thCir. 2010)

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public

might

benefit on balance from such a curtailment,though there is no proof it would.

There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state’s taking a different approach from the other 49 states. If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it.

The constitutionality of the challenged statutory provisions does not present factual questions for determination in a trial. The evidence marshaled in the

Skoien

case was evidence of “legislative facts,” which is to say facts that bear on the justification for legislation,as distinct from facts concerning the conduct of parties in a particular case (“adjudicative facts”). See Fed. R. Evid.201(a); Advisory Committee Note to Subdivision (a) of1972 Proposed Rule [of Evidence] 201. Only adjudicative facts are determined in trials, and only legislative facts are relevant to the constitutionality of the Illinois gun law. The key legislative facts in this case are the effects of the Illinois law; the state has failed to show that those effects are positive.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation ofthe Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand

them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality andpermanent injunctions.

This is in response to what is bolded above. There's no need to address the rest of the attempt at deflection.

What exactly does the 180 day stay of execution of the order mean to you? It means that the laws that were in force at the time the decision was rendered stay in force. And then Illinois was granted a further 30 day extension to finalize their legislation, keeping the old laws in effect. Then the new legislation was passed so the new laws become in effect. At no point was there a time with no laws in effect. The Court of Appeals gave the 180 day stay to prevent the scenario that you just described, it was to prevent any lapse so that there was always gun laws in place. The old laws were in effect until the new laws were passed. No concealed carry by out of state permit holders was in effect and remains in effect at this very moment.

Here is another link to read: I have some from the NRA too.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/20524014-761/attorney-general-asks-appeals-court-to-extend-deadline-for-conceal-carry-law.html

Edited February 9, 2014 by spookyturtle

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Thank You sir. You are a darn good mod, although saying that even mockingly may hurt your career here in the Twilight zone

Now I think Marvin and I were discussing GZ, correct?

Awww, you miss me hon? Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this isn't the last of ole GZ, but this is Spooky's thread, let contribute to it since he's fought hard to keep it open.

I've read all the links that Spooky's provided. Looks like CC wasn't in place until recently. So, I don't understand what's all the fuss about.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Awww, you miss me hon? Don't worry, I'm pretty sure this isn't the last of ole GZ, but this is Spooky's thread, let contribute to it since he's fought hard to keep it open.

I've read all the links that Spooky's provided. Looks like CC wasn't in place until recently. So, I don't understand what's all the fuss about.

It was a joke Marvin. A mod shut the thread down, because it had run it's course and deleted several off topic responses. After appeal he re-opened, and urged us to stay on Topic. The first post was me talking about GZ, "the joke being we promise to stay on topic and like usual it never lasts" LOL

Anyway it got nuked right away.

I have to agree. I can't see any evidence CC contributed to the drop in Murders this year, although I think CC is a good thing.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It was a joke Marvin. A mod shut the thread down, because it had run it's course and deleted several off topic responses. After appeal he re-opened, and urged us to stay on Topic. The first post was me talking about GZ, "the joke being we promise to stay on topic and like usual it never lasts" LOL

Anyway it got nuked right away.

I have to agree. I can't see any evidence CC contributed to the drop in Murders this year, although I think CC is a good thing.

CC carry was not legal in Illinois during 2013. Period. People could begin apply in early January of this year. No permits issued yet, they are in process. It will be interesting to see how things go in 2014.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

It was a joke Marvin. A mod shut the thread down, because it had run it's course and deleted several off topic responses. After appeal he re-opened, and urged us to stay on Topic. The first post was me talking about GZ, "the joke being we promise to stay on topic and like usual it never lasts" LOL

Anyway it got nuked right away.

I have to agree. I can't see any evidence CC contributed to the drop in Murders this year, although I think CC is a good thing.

I know, just joshing with you.

I just want to see Gary fight this one with logic and facts, not with assumptions and opinions.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I know, just joshing with you.

I just want to see Gary fight this one with logic and facts, not with assumptions and opinions.

Honestly Gary makes some really good points most of the time. I agree with him a lot. However we all get it wrong sometimes, most of us admit when we do with the exception of a few I will not call Cought MBD, Cough gegel names LOL

However here is the thing with Gary. He drives many of you nuts on purpose with stuff he says, for that very intended purpose. The guy is no dummy. Often times i pick up on it, and see many of you go on for pages about it. I am sure he is laughing at pulling your chains, so eloquently.

This time I can't tell if he is pulling your chain or messed up. I am leaning toward messed up.

Either way he is wrong, everyone has proved it...As an impartial observer I say you guys finally won one on Gary. It's 500-1 now.LOL

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Honestly Gary makes some really good points most of the time. I agree with him a lot. However we all get it wrong sometimes, most of us admit when we do with the exception of a few I will not call Cought MBD, Cough gegel names LOL

However here is the thing with Gary. He drives many of you nuts on purpose with stuff he says, for that very intended purpose. The guy is no dummy. Often times i pick up on it, and see many of you go on for pages about it. I am sure he is laughing at pulling your chains, so eloquently.

This time I can't tell if he is pulling your chain or messed up. I am leaning toward messed up.

Either way he is wrong, everyone has proved it...As an impartial observer I say you guys finally won one on Gary. It's 500-1 now.LOL

Oh yeah, you're real impartial

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh yeah, you're real impartial

I said you guys proved your point on CC and won. Could a tainted judge do that.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I said you guys proved your point on CC and won. Could a tainted judge do that.

No siree. Guess that makes you completely impartial

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No siree. Guess that makes you completely impartial

Marvin his seen the light.

Now If I can just make you racially neutral like me..Battle is won

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Marvin his seen the light.

Now If I can just make you racially neutral like me..Battle is won

Now that's going to take some work!