Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Audio from Oral Arguments Presented in Illinois Right-to-Carry Case (via NRA email)

  1. #1
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489

    Audio from Oral Arguments Presented in Illinois Right-to-Carry Case (via NRA email)

    Found this audio to be interesting. I was a little perturbed to hear that the NRA (representative) does NOT agree with a general statement that there should be no additional restrictions to carrying arms in public verse having them at home.

    Had to think about this for a little bit but I guess I always felt that no, there should not be additional restrictions on arms outside the home verse inside the home. Just curious what you guys think?


    http://www.nraila.org/media/7854038/...-arguments.mp3

    ETA: I'm only about 1/3 through the audio now and I already disgusted at the arrogant elitist attitudes of the judges. "Do you REALLY think there is a constitutional right to carry a gun in a bar?!" "People are drinking at the bars, we can all agree that's what people go to bars to do."
    Last edited by twoskinsonemanns; 06-26-2012 at 11:58 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    it sounds bad for the good guys till you get to the point that they start grilling the Chicago lawyer. They tear him apart.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    It sounds bad, but Il doesn't have any allowed carry at this time. The judges were asking questions to were carry should be resticted, which the attorney was trying to avoid. The judges tore the state a new one at the hearing. I appears that they are leaning toward overturning the UUW and AUUW statutes, which will open the door to carry in the state. We just went through a situation where the speaker of the house (takes a 3/5 majority to override) wouldn't even let a carry bill out of committee and takes a 3/5 majority to override home rule cities (mostly chicago) in this backwards state. Chicago controls everthing that happens in this state, because of the population distribution. And Madigan, Speaker of the House, buys and intimidated elected politicians. Even sponsors a republican, they know can't win, to run against him for reelection.
    Last edited by RANDYT; 06-27-2012 at 04:59 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    What case is this argument in regard to? This appears to be a case before the 7th district court of appeals. Is that correct?
    Might be stupid questions, but I'd surely think relevant ones.

    blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Last edited by M-Taliesin; 07-04-2012 at 06:27 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    It was the oral argument in the 7th court of appeals for the consolidated cases of shephard v madigan, and moore v madigan.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Nothing the NRA does or says surprises me ...

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    The ability of the state to restrict firearm carry in public is still in flux and as such judges have very inconsistent information to work with.

    Pennsylvania and Indiana both are silent on carrying and drinking or visiting bars, yet other states have a total prohibition.

    Isn't that the marvellous experiment that is Federalism?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Just another lack of common sense.....

    Its still amazes me that judges are even hearing these kinds of arguments. The problem is that we allowed people to get into office that believe 2A is open to interperetation. Im not the smartest person, but 2A is pretty clear to me. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!

    That does NOT allow for state regulation.....
    That does NOT allow for "concealed firearm" permits......
    That does NOT allow for a judge to decide what it means to keep and bear arms.....

    If it comes down to a judge telling us how to read it, then this country is no longer ruled by laws, but ruled by man. And if I remember correctly, thats what the constitution and declaration of independance was for. To prevent this sort of ruling.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Within the purview of ordered liberty that is our Republic, there are likely some places that the state has justification to regulate carrying arms, like active courtrooms for instance, or prisons.

    I'm of the personal opinion the state only has the practical ability to control firearms when they are using entry control points that secure the area and employed with armed guards and metal detectors.

    Any other place they "ban" firearms is only stopping those that are inclined to follow the rules and thus are unlikely to be a danger to public safety anyway.

    Of course that doesn't mean we want to pay for every post office to have guards and metal detectors, so there has to be some reasonable limit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by ComradeV View Post
    Within the purview of ordered liberty that is our Republic, there are likely some places that the state has justification to regulate carrying arms, like active courtrooms for instance, or prisons.

    I'm of the personal opinion the state only has the practical ability to control firearms when they are using entry control points that secure the area and employed with armed guards and metal detectors.

    Any other place they "ban" firearms is only stopping those that are inclined to follow the rules and thus are unlikely to be a danger to public safety anyway.

    Of course that doesn't mean we want to pay for every post office to have guards and metal detectors, so there has to be some reasonable limit.
    Please tell me where in the Consitution is says the state is allowed ANY regulation of firearms. I understand what you are saying, but the problem lies in exactly your opening sentence.

    For too long we have allowed people to take a little here, and a little there, and where are we now? We must go back to the law of the land. If we dont reenforce the rule of the Constitution, we will be left without any rights at all. If we continue to let the .gov take an inch, it will get more and more
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Please tell me where in the Consitution is says the state is allowed ANY regulation of firearms. I understand what you are saying, but the problem lies in exactly your opening sentence.

    For too long we have allowed people to take a little here, and a little there, and where are we now? We must go back to the law of the land. If we dont reenforce the rule of the Constitution, we will be left without any rights at all. If we continue to let the .gov take an inch, it will get more and more
    People allow gov to take a little here and there it because people are selfish. We see this common with our own brothers who hold permits. They seem to think the constitution is about a club and as long as they get theirs they are happy to settle. Sooner or later it will bite them in the arse, and all of us lose. And this is not just about the 2A it is about all of our rights. We can no longer talk freely without big brother listening in, the police storm peoples homes and beat home owners with impunity, and even when they clearly have the wrong residence. The police in AZ murdered a marine, and the officers are still walking free. A US citizen was murdered by executive order without due process. We sat by idly because the media said he was a bad man, and he probably was. Now a citizen who acted clearly in self defense is fighting for his freedom in Fl. Free speech, protection from unlawful search and seizure, due process, all are being thrown out the window.

    It is time we wake up, and hopefully soon.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Its still amazes me that judges are even hearing these kinds of arguments. The problem is that we allowed people to get into office that believe 2A is open to interperetation. Im not the smartest person, but 2A is pretty clear to me. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!

    .
    I still hear politicians talking about the 2nd amendment in respect to hunter's rights ... oh brother. I just want to kick them in the crotch but figure its best to just let them live in their dream world.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    Please tell me where in the Consitution is says the state is allowed ANY regulation of firearms. I understand what you are saying, but the problem lies in exactly your opening sentence.

    For too long we have allowed people to take a little here, and a little there, and where are we now? We must go back to the law of the land. If we dont reenforce the rule of the Constitution, we will be left without any rights at all. If we continue to let the .gov take an inch, it will get more and more
    The U.S. Constitution was designed to outline what the FEDERAL government' could or could not do. A prime example is the 1st Amendment, where it states "CONGRESS shall make no law...". Congress is where laws originate, and get passed, thus the 1st Amendment prohibited them from making a law prohibiting free speech etc. It doesn't prohibit the states from doing such however. Another example is the 3rd Amendment (No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.). It only mentions soldiers, which common thinking would include all military, it does not mention anything about law enforcement, or anyone else at the state level. Today we see it with the healthcare debate. Hawaii and Massachusetts have a state wide healthcare program like Obama care is attempting to do for the nation. Nobody disputes the Constitutionality of those state programs because the Constitution doesn't strictly prohibit the states from doing so, even though MY view of the U.S. Constitution would prohibit the FEDERAL government from doing the same.

    The 14th Amendment is what the Supreme Court uses to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states (further proof that they didn't originally apply), and has made several (but not all) amendments applicable to the states. So while the 1st Amendment states "CONGRESS shall make no law...." the Supreme Court, through the 14th Amendment have essentially made it so no state can make a law prohibiting free speech etc.
    Rand Paul 2016

  14. #14
    Regular Member MagiK_SacK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    VA Beach, VA
    Posts
    264
    Howdy! I'm currently listening to the audio. I have to say, even though the court has been asking a lot about how and where the state could regulate the carry of firearms it does sound like the judges are leaning towards the support of 2A. I am sorry you guys are at ground zero, so to speak, and have such a long way to go for the restoration of your rights. It does sound like the judges might be in your favor, and are on your way to a start! Keep the fight up!
    .45 ACP - Because shooting twice is silly

    A cop pulled me over and said, "Papers..." So I said "Scissors, I win!" and drove away.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiK_SacK View Post
    Howdy! I'm currently listening to the audio. I have to say, even though the court has been asking a lot about how and where the state could regulate the carry of firearms it does sound like the judges are leaning towards the support of 2A. I am sorry you guys are at ground zero, so to speak, and have such a long way to go for the restoration of your rights. It does sound like the judges might be in your favor, and are on your way to a start! Keep the fight up!
    The 7th is antigun, lets make that clear. They will rule that a total ban is 4-f. They will try to tell them how to get around it -- like a person who has a protective order can get one & that's it. This should be appealed by either party and likely will be.


    I hope this case opinion is out soon ... even a minor pro-gun ruling will energize folks to vote .. hopefully to get the democrats to a minority in a house of the legislature.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-19-2012 at 01:13 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •