SAF Filed Suit Against Illinois!

http://online.barrons.com/article/PR-CO-20110513-909258.html

Snip:


The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense are "inconsistent with the Second Amendment." Joining SAF are two private citizens, Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy. Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen and David Sigale. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

"Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "The state legislature recently stopped, by a thin margin, a concealed carry measure. After the 2008 Heller ruling and last year's McDonald ruling against the City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, one would think that Illinois lawmakers would act quickly to comply with court decisions and the constitution."

JTHunter said:

These two threads needs to be combined as they both relate to the same situation.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...nal-Ban-On-Carrying-Firearms-For-Self-Defense

Click to expand...

Not really. As they are separate suits filed in different districts they cannot be combined by the court. There are going to be two distinct sets of case filings and distinct developments for each case and they deserve to be discussed separately to avoid confusion and cross talk.

UPDATE: Have SAF, NRA lawsuits pushed IL lawmakers to reconsider concealed carry?

The double-whammy federal lawsuits in Illinois – one filed by Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and the other by the National Rifle Association and Illinois State Rifle Association – may be responsible for this morning’s possible “attitude adjustment” in the Prairie State capitol for adoption of a concealed carry statute.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...ushed-il-solons-to-reconsider-concealed-carry

I received a juror questionnaire from my county for jury duty. One of the questions is Have you been convicted of a crime and not restored to your full civil rights? (No longer allowed to carry a firearm, etc.) This seems to be an admission, by my county, that my full civil rights includes the right to carry a firearm.l

Hypothetically assuming the success of the law suits, I still have to wonder how much good shall issue could end up doing.

Considering Chicago's response to McDonald, I would imagine it could end up looking a lot like the process in the PRK, or even worse. Mental health screenings, prohibitively high costs for permits, prohibitively expensive other things like required liability insurance, this is a great way to keep guns out of the hands of the abnormally at risk poor, and even the interested lower middle class, and nonsense mental health screenings could give PD's a great way to arbitrarily reject anyone for any bogus reason which on paper would look legit.

Unless they manage some form of permitless concealed carry or meaningful open carry with no special permission, I would say we should fully expect the Illinois government to kick and scream like the oppressive whining brat of a state that it is. Having the NRA on board makes it statistically less likely that permitless open carry will be pushed for.

I've got high hopes and low expectations for you fine folks in your garbage state. Good luck my friends.

Michigander said:

Hypothetically assuming the success of the law suits, I still have to wonder how much good shall issue could end up doing.

Considering Chicago's response to McDonald, I would imagine it could end up looking a lot like the process in the PRK, or even worse. Mental health screenings, prohibitively high costs for permits, prohibitively expensive other things like required liability insurance, this is a great way to keep guns out of the hands of the abnormally at risk poor, and even the interested lower middle class, and nonsense mental health screenings could give PD's a great way to arbitrarily reject anyone for any bogus reason which on paper would look legit.

Unless they manage some form of permitless concealed carry or meaningful open carry with no special permission, I would say we should fully expect the Illinois government to kick and scream like the oppressive whining brat of a state that it is. Having the NRA on board makes it statistically less likely that permitless open carry will be pushed for.

I've got high hopes and low expectations for you fine folks in your garbage state. Good luck my friends.

Click to expand...

HR 148 is on the preverbal back burner for the time being and the NRA's contract lobbyist has said in no uncertain terms that it is not going to be used to derail the judicial process.

The courts are not going to order IL to come up with a shall issue system. They will simply invalidate the unconstitutional provisions of ILCS 720 and let the cards fall where they may. It will result in a de facto constitutional carry system.

Many people have assumed that there will be an immediate legislative response to any court decision, like Chicago did immediately after McDonald. But, firearms issues in Illinois politics are not as simple as they are in Chicago politics. In Chicago the city council is a monolithic block that foes whatever they are told.

The general assembly is not that way. There is a stalemate, but it leans in our favor. We have the votes, but the have the chair. We have difficulty passing pro gun bills because of Madigan & Cullerton. They assign our bills to unfavorable committeees and refuse to allow them to the floor. If we do get floor votes, the chair rules that we need super majorities.

We have the votes. They cannot pass anti gun bills in the current general assembly. Look at this years record. They're agenda failed.

If the courts declare the UUW and AUUW statutes unconstitutional we will have taken the holy grail and will only have to resist new creeping infringements.

I was trying to find the statutes you are referring too, but the Illinois site doesn't list all the statutes, and on top of that their laws read like stereo instructions. I'm a former resident of Illinois with family there so I have some interest in the fight over there. I was amazed that California scored higher on the Brady scale than Illinois considering that in California you can/could at least carry your pistol if it were unloaded. If the laws do get shot down and carrying becomes legal in IL you can bet your ass I'll be carrying everytime I go there. Sorry for rambling.

CharleyCherokee said:

I was trying to find the statutes you are referring too, but the Illinois site doesn't list all the statutes, and on top of that their laws read like stereo instructions. I'm a former resident of Illinois with family there so I have some interest in the fight over there. I was amazed that California scored higher on the Brady scale than Illinois considering that in California you can/could at least carry your pistol if it were unloaded. If the laws do get shot down and carrying becomes legal in IL you can bet your ass I'll be carrying everytime I go there. Sorry for rambling.

Click to expand...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...hapterID=53&SeqStart=62900000&SeqEnd=65800000

It's worse than stereo instructions. I've noticed that Illinois' seems to just make everything illegal, then provide exceptions to the law.

Take It and Run

CraigC178 said:

http://online.barrons.com/article/PR-CO-20110513-909258.html

Snip:


The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense are "inconsistent with the Second Amendment." Joining SAF are two private citizens, Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy. Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen and David Sigale. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

"Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "The state legislature recently stopped, by a thin margin, a concealed carry measure. After the 2008 Heller ruling and last year's McDonald ruling against the City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, one would think that Illinois lawmakers would act quickly to comply with court decisions and the constitution."

Click to expand...

This one news report/issue, is sufficient to go out and recruit thousands of Illinois 2A supporters to join the fight.
They should join SAF
They should join some statewide 2A group.
They should get on this forum or some other one.
They should begin a personal relationship with their State Representitives.
They should begin meeting with 2A supporters in their communities.

Buddy up with another shooter and hit the bricks.
Go forth and seek out others to win this battle.

CraigC178 said:

HR 148 is on the preverbal back burner for the time being and the NRA's contract lobbyist has said in no uncertain terms that it is not going to be used to derail the judicial process.

The courts are not going to order IL to come up with a shall issue system. They will simply invalidate the unconstitutional provisions of ILCS 720 and let the cards fall where they may. It will result in a de facto constitutional carry system.

Many people have assumed that there will be an immediate legislative response to any court decision, like Chicago did immediately after McDonald. But, firearms issues in Illinois politics are not as simple as they are in Chicago politics. In Chicago the city council is a monolithic block that foes whatever they are told.

The general assembly is not that way. There is a stalemate, but it leans in our favor. We have the votes, but the have the chair. We have difficulty passing pro gun bills because of Madigan & Cullerton. They assign our bills to unfavorable committeees and refuse to allow them to the floor. If we do get floor votes, the chair rules that we need super majorities.

We have the votes. They cannot pass anti gun bills in the current general assembly. Look at this years record. They're agenda failed.

If the courts declare the UUW and AUUW statutes unconstitutional we will have taken the holy grail and will only have to resist new creeping infringements.

Click to expand...

Illinois residents would enjoy constitutional carry for 1-3 days. After that you would see many Illinois county and city governments passing ordinances of their own to restrict the right to carry. You'd have a mess of gun laws worse than Missouri's. The only question I have is can a local government such as a city or county pass a law making something a felony? It might seem like a silly question, but I've never found a city or county law where that has been done. If it CAN be done then I would assume in Illinois it will be done sporatically throughout the state.

CharleyCherokee said:

Illinois residents would enjoy constitutional carry for 1-3 days. After that you would see many Illinois county and city governments passing ordinances of their own to restrict the right to carry. You'd have a mess of gun laws worse than Missouri's. The only question I have is can a local government such as a city or county pass a law making something a felony? It might seem like a silly question, but I've never found a city or county law where that has been done. If it CAN be done then I would assume in Illinois it will be done sporatically throughout the state.

Click to expand...

Misdemeanors only.

Every state has restrictions on right to carry. Even Vermont. It's purely a matter of degree.