Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:39 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit315 View Post
As long as they can keep the down staters together. I see quinn, madigan, madigan, rhambo, et al. putting as much pressure as humanly possible on them to pass the first one of their bills that they can get queued up. That would buy them time as well as letting them control the field, so to speak.
But from what I have read, the RKBA crowd controls the IL legislature and we are now holding almost all of the cards, does IL really want to risk Constitutional Carry? I think we get a really solid shall-issue law.....
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:41 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If I was a gun rights supporter in Illinois, I would lobbying the hell out of the representatives to do nothing on the issue and just let the clock wind out. You've got the ball with 1:45 left, a 20 point lead, other team has no time-outs, just kneel on it 3 times.
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:47 PM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
But from what I have read, the RKBA crowd controls the IL legislature and we are now holding almost all of the cards, does IL really want to risk Constitutional Carry? I think we get a really solid shall-issue law.....
In a state where the system worked as advertised, I would agree with you. However, there are always pressure points on legislators, and the machine crew will push as hard as they an on those pressure points, have no doubt.

I was born and raised in Illinois until I joined the Navy. I have zero reason to believe anything major has changed in that respect in the last 12 years. I wont feel optimistic until I see people actually carrying without getting thrown in jail.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:51 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
SAF's Gotlieb was on a local radio show briefly earlier today as a call-in guest and indicated that Madigan et.al. had 120 days to file cert with SCOTUS.
Looks like 90 days...

Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment. A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying discretionary review.

Cornell Uninversity Law School
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:52 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No arguments from me...I like 90 days better than 120 days
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:57 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,477
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Yup, AK-15 shoots 7.62x45mm and AR-47 shoots 5.56x39mm. Both rounds can take down helicopters and blow up tanks up to a mile away if aimed, and up to two miles away if shot from the hip.

They kill puppies up to three miles away too.
Split ya clean in half they will! Don't put a slide fire stock on em else everyone in a five mile radius' doomed.
__________________

Last edited by readysetgo; 02-23-2013 at 12:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:59 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,134
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Really.

Not sure if anyone has seen the latest news -

Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.

The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.

But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”


Perhaps when June comes along, gun rights groups should put together a "cross section" of "volunteers" to deliberately get arrested and represented by the "A Team" legal defense pro-bono.

I am sure we can create a real good cross section of "defendants" that will allow us to hit Illonis from every possible subgroup and "protected" group possible.

Guess the "Chicago Machine" wants to make sure Alan Gura can buy a "Super Exotic" sports car.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:01 PM
htjyang htjyang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can Gene or someone else familiar with Supreme Court procedure double-check my understanding here:

1. Suppose if Illinois appeals to the Supreme Court, can they appeal for a temporary stay of the lower court's mandate (Posner's mandate to strike down the law) pending the Court's decision on their cert?

2. Assuming that they can, am I right to assume that a stay of the lower court order requires 5 votes?
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:02 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
If I was a gun rights supporter in Illinois, I would lobbying the hell out of the representatives to do nothing on the issue and just let the clock wind out. You've got the ball with 1:45 left, a 20 point lead, other team has no time-outs, just kneel on it 3 times.
I really want to agree with you, but this is IL!! Kermit is right about the "machine crew" and Madigan can still ask to stay the 180 days or it could get stayed if granted cert or if Kachalsky gets granted cert this probably gets a stay. We are proabably way safer with a solid shall-issue bill getting passed ASAP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit315 View Post
In a state where the system worked as advertised, I would agree with you. However, there are always pressure points on legislators, and the machine crew will push as hard as they an on those pressure points, have no doubt.

I was born and raised in Illinois until I joined the Navy. I have zero reason to believe anything major has changed in that respect in the last 12 years. I wont feel optimistic until I see people actually carrying without getting thrown in jail.
Kermit since you are a native I will defer to your wisdom and I have never trusted that political machine that runs Chicago, or IL for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:10 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Not sure if anyone has seen the latest news -

Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.

The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.

But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”


Perhaps when June comes along, gun rights groups should put together a "cross section" of "volunteers" to deliberately get arrested and represented by the "A Team" legal defense pro-bono.

I am sure we can create a real good cross section of "defendants" that will allow us to hit Illonis from every possible subgroup and "protected" group possible.

Guess the "Chicago Machine" wants to make sure Alan Gura can buy a "Super Exotic" sports car.

Nicki
Is your other screen name "Bangel"???

Your post is pretty much word for word a duplicate of his on the previous page.......???????

Here's a copy of my reply to his equally non-sensical post....


That's not the latest news. After the weird rant of the "Cook County Policy Director", the state legal eagles explained to the legislatures that the order was in fact binding on the state and that ignoring the court would be at their peril.

Eyewitness accounts from people present in the room reported that you could have heard a pin drop.

We ARE in fact winning!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:10 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by htjyang View Post
Can Gene or someone else familiar with Supreme Court procedure double-check my understanding here:

1. Suppose if Illinois appeals to the Supreme Court, can they appeal for a temporary stay of the lower court's mandate (Posner's mandate to strike down the law) pending the Court's decision on their cert?

2. Assuming that they can, am I right to assume that a stay of the lower court order requires 5 votes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I think that even Posner would grant an extension on the 180 days while waiting for word on cert or not.

-Gene
Let's just get a shall-issue bill passed NOW!
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:04 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The math doesn't look good for the state. Judge Posner is well respected in the 7th Circuit. We can assume that Judge Williams (the 1 dissenting judge) called for a vote. They need 6. Posner & Flaum are definite no's. Easterbrook is a no, and the two majority Ezell judges (Sykes & Kanne) would likely vote no. There are only 10 active judges on the court so....
Good job Gray, you got it 100% correct!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Not only that, but the judges that are likely to vote "no" also know what is at stake if this decision is taken en banc. That will serve to reinforce their "no" vote. I expect that will turn the two majority Ezell judges' votes into certain "no" votes.
Kevin I concur, however why did Kanne NOT participate? We might have really needed his vote, but I suspect he would have particpated had that been the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FastFinger View Post
en banc?

Banc on this:

Well this post is to basically display the talented resources we have here at Calguns that produces so much good insight and analysis!

What is frustrating is how close all of these critcal votes are (Heller & McDonald were both 5-4), Moore was 2-1 with the en banc vote here being 5-4 with Hamilton, Rovner, Wood and Williams all dissenting with Kanne not participating. All of the Klinton/0bama judges were in the dissent. Note that Rovner supported us in Ezell but joined in the dissent here.

This just further illustrates that elections have consequences and 0bama is now going to have four more years to appoint judges, hopefully none to SCOTUS!
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:32 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by htjyang View Post
Can Gene or someone else familiar with Supreme Court procedure double-check my understanding here:

1. Suppose if Illinois appeals to the Supreme Court, can they appeal for a temporary stay of the lower court's mandate (Posner's mandate to strike down the law) pending the Court's decision on their cert?

2. Assuming that they can, am I right to assume that a stay of the lower court order requires 5 votes?
According to FRAP 41, the court must issue the mandate within 7 days of the notice of the denial of rehearing. The losing side may petition for a stay of mandate by certifying that they will file a petition for cert. This also must be done within 7 days of the denial.

What this means is that if Madigan does not petition the court for the stay of mandate, then it is indicative that she will not be appealing to the SCOTUS. We will know by Thursday of next week.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:16 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
That's not the latest news. After the weird rant of the "Cook County Policy Director", the state legal eagles explained to the legislatures that the order was in fact binding on the state and that ignoring the court would be at their peril.

Eyewitness accounts from people present in the room reported that you could have heard a pin drop.

We ARE in fact winning!!!!

It certainly looks that way. My only cause for doubt? This IS Chicago we're talking about & I've always had my doubts about the Rule of Law over there.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 02-23-2013, 10:06 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by htjyang View Post
Can Gene or someone else familiar with Supreme Court procedure double-check my understanding here:

1. Suppose if Illinois appeals to the Supreme Court, can they appeal for a temporary stay of the lower court's mandate (Posner's mandate to strike down the law) pending the Court's decision on their cert?

2. Assuming that they can, am I right to assume that a stay of the lower court order requires 5 votes?
Motions to stay may be made by applying to one Justice. See Rule 23: SCOTUS Rules of Court. Time to petition is 90 days (Rule 13).
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 02-23-2013, 10:29 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
It certainly looks that way. My only cause for doubt? This IS Chicago we're talking about & I've always had my doubts about the Rule of Law over there.
Let's look at the bigger picture here. It is Chicago, it is IL, but the legislators currently ARE pro RKBA and they can decide to do nothing until the ruling goes into effect.

However, if the antis want to negotiate, we can get not only a strong shall-issue, but also a very narrow definition of "sensitive places." It appears that the "sensitive places loophole" is where the dissent was going and where the anti-gun localities will be trying to hide.

So, let's say Chicago starts playing games, but we get "sensitive places" sorted out in the most restrictive part of the country. Who cares. Chicago will eventually have to comply, but we end up with a priceless gem for the rest of the country. Granted, it would be legislative and not legal definition, but it would give a very good clue to other anti-gun legislators what will happen if they don't play ball.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:29 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
What this means is that if Madigan does not petition the court for the stay of mandate, then it is indicative that she will not be appealing to the SCOTUS. We will know by Thursday of next week.
The two really, really interesting possibilities out there is that Madigan doesn't petition and Richards winning in the 9th. Both are lower probability events, but can't be counted out yet.

California could get more fun much sooner than we expect (but don't hold your breath.)

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:55 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
The two really, really interesting possibilities out there is that Madigan doesn't petition and Richards winning in the 9th. Both are lower probability events, but can't be counted out yet.

California could get more fun much sooner than we expect (but don't hold your breath.)

-Gene
Why would Madigan want this to go to SCOTUS? Do they really think that the Heller 5 would actually say that guns are only allowed "in the home"?

If they let this ruling by the 7th stand, Illinois could simply accept it and then test the waters for what they think is reasonable regulation as opposed to having SCOTUS tell the whole country "concealed and open carry for all" (ok a little over board)
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 02-23-2013, 3:29 PM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Why would Madigan want this to go to SCOTUS? Do they really think that the Heller 5 would actually say that guns are only allowed "in the home"?

If they let this ruling by the 7th stand, Illinois could simply accept it and then test the waters for what they think is reasonable regulation as opposed to having SCOTUS tell the whole country "concealed and open carry for all" (ok a little over board)
Because you are thinking big picture. those nit wits in the machine cant think past their next election, and abhor losing power. Madigan doesnt want to go down as a loser, especially in this. She will keep pushing until she cant push anymore.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 02-23-2013, 3:39 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermit315 View Post
Because you are thinking big picture. those nit wits in the machine cant think past their next election, and abhor losing power. Madigan doesnt want to go down as a loser, especially in this. She will keep pushing until she cant push anymore.
I agree with you. Problem here is, if they go all or nothing, they will end up with nothing.

I think when it comes to control, there may be incentive to not push this forward and try, within, to come up with regulations to satisfy the ruling. This way they could add regulations as they see fit, make pro 2A folks challenge each regulation and drag on their kingdom a lot longer. Chicago politics! Expect the unexpected.
Reply With Quote
  #621  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:33 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,391
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I agree with you. Problem here is, if they go all or nothing, they will end up with nothing.
I don't see a problem here .
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:45 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I really hope they leave sensitive places to only airports or federal buildings with metal detectors.
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 02-23-2013, 4:59 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I don't see a problem here .
Yes of course! Trying to see this from their side and it doesn't look good for them at all.
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:01 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they were to file cert on that I don't see SCOTUS taking it.

In fact, I see them taking Kachalsky and telling Madigan to stick it.

The Kachalsky ruling could also affect Madigan. So.... yeah.
Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:04 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
If they were to file cert on that I don't see SCOTUS taking it.

In fact, I see them taking Kachalsky and telling Madigan to stick it.

The Kachalsky ruling could also affect Madigan. So.... yeah.
The fun thing about taking Madigan though is that Illinois is like CA in that they have no 2A in their constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:05 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
I really hope they leave sensitive places to only airports or federal buildings with metal detectors.
Airports are not sensitive till you get beyond TSA and gates
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:36 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The fun thing about taking Madigan though is that Illinois is like CA in that they have no 2A in their constitution.
Doesn't need to be.

USC applies to all 50 states. Just because the state constitution doesn't have it doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

That was the ruling on McDonald I think it was, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:46 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
Doesn't need to be.

USC applies to all 50 states. Just because the state constitution doesn't have it doesn't mean they get to ignore it.

That was the ruling on McDonald I think it was, anyway.
I understand that! The states are still reluctant to admit it though as you can see her in CA. A SCOTUS ruling against a state similar to CA would really make a point.
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:36 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
The fun thing about taking Madigan though is that Illinois is like CA in that they have no 2A in their constitution.
Illinois does have RKBA in their constitution. Though it is "subject to the police power."
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 02-23-2013, 7:03 PM
non sequitur's Avatar
non sequitur non sequitur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 312
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

It seems we'll end up betting the farm on the Heller Five. After Obama won re-election, Valerie Jarrett was quick to comment "...we have two judges ready to go." Would you put it past this Administration to pull a "Pelican Brief" to thwart any further pro-2A 5/4 votes?
__________________
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

*Not valid in CA, NY, HI, MD, NJ or DC
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 02-23-2013, 7:51 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 794
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
Would you put it past this Administration to pull a "Pelican Brief" to thwart any further pro-2A 5/4 votes?
Accidents do happen....
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 02-24-2013, 9:13 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
It seems we'll end up betting the farm on the Heller Five. After Obama won re-election, Valerie Jarrett was quick to comment "...we have two judges ready to go." Would you put it past this Administration to pull a "Pelican Brief" to thwart any further pro-2A 5/4 votes?
It means we have to rush in Judicial time.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #633  
Old 02-24-2013, 9:29 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,477
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
It seems we'll end up betting the farm on the Heller Five. After Obama won re-election, Valerie Jarrett was quick to comment "...we have two judges ready to go." Would you put it past this Administration to pull a "Pelican Brief" to thwart any further pro-2A 5/4 votes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
Accidents do happen....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It means we have to rush in Judicial time.

-Gene
STOP IT! Fear and anger building inside... aaaaghhhh!

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 02-24-2013, 9:33 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by non sequitur View Post
It seems we'll end up betting the farm on the Heller Five. After Obama won re-election, Valerie Jarrett was quick to comment "...we have two judges ready to go." Would you put it past this Administration to pull a "Pelican Brief" to thwart any further pro-2A 5/4 votes?
An Administration that habitually lies to the public to further its agenda, that put thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels to further its gun-grabbing agenda, an administration that assassinates US citizens? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It means we have to rush in Judicial time.
Yes we do. Unfortunately judicial time isn't much faster than a glacial pace.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 02-24-2013, 12:15 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene View Post
The two really, really interesting possibilities out there is that Madigan doesn't petition and Richards winning in the 9th. Both are lower probability events, but can't be counted out yet.
Gene I actually thought of that permutation. It made me smile!

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Why would Madigan want this to go to SCOTUS? Do they really think that the Heller 5 would actually say that guns are only allowed "in the home"?
It comes down to, it doesn't matter what they really think.

What matters is that Madigan wants to be the next Governor (as does her Dad, who is pushing this and her). In order to get there, Lisa Madigan must be seen as defending the laws of the State, for all she's worth. That's the political reality.

Madigan cannot campaign with "clean hands" if she doesn't petition for cert. Win, lose, or draw, Madigan is "locked in." Even if she knows she will lose, it is something she must do, to retain political credibility.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 02-24-2013, 1:25 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,459
iTrader: 46 / 88%
Default



Here she is in all her glory, pondering when she will petition.



And...admiring her hero...









It's all politics for these scumbags

Quote:
Lisa Madigan ‘seriously thinking’ about run for governor

Updated: February 24, 2013 6:40AM

WASHINGTON — Sen. Dick Durbin told me Tuesday that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is “seriously thinking” about running for governor.

I talked to Madigan about a gubernatorial bid on Saturday night — she was here for President Barack Obama’s Inauguration festivities — and my takeaway from the conversation is she wants to run whether or not Bill Daley also gets in a Democratic primary to challenge Gov. Pat Quinn.

The main consequence of Madigan, 46, inching toward a bid is this: We now know the politically vulnerable Quinn is heading toward a colossal primary fight because he is going to be facing strong opponents, either Madigan, Daley or both in the March 18, 2014, balloting.

“She had made special outreach to labor and they know it, they’ve noticed in terms of her showing up at events and the like,” Durbin told me. “I don’t think she has made a final decision. I know she is in the process of making a decision.”

When Madigan mulled a Senate run in 2009, she mustered little enthusiasm when we talked about the prospect of what would have been a Democratic primary contest and taking a job where she would have to commute between Chicago and Washington.

That was not the case when we chatted about a 2014 Democratic primary for governor at the Illinois Inaugural Gala. This time, she’s hungry.
[QUOTE]Federal court denies rehearing of concealed carry ruling, leaving Ill. lawmakers to draft law

By Associated Press, Published: February 22

CHICAGO — A federal appeals court on Friday narrowly rejected Illinois’ request to reconsider a ruling that found the state’s concealed carry weapons ban unconstitutional, leaving lawmakers in the only state that still prohibits concealed carry more certain than ever they must come up with a new law.

The 5-4 ruling (As opposed to 6-4)by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave state Attorney General Lisa Madigan the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court — a move that could affect gun laws in other states. It also came on the same day that state lawmakers held a hearing on the issue in Chicago — a city that’s drawn national attention for its gun violence and rising homicide rate, including last month’s death of a 15-year-old honor student a mile from President Barack Obama’s home.

Madigan said in a statement she has not yet decided whether to appeal. But she said a dissent written by four of the judges “provided a clear framework to guide the legislature in drafting a new law.” Those judges said some restrictions — including limits on who may carry and where they may do so — could be considered constitutional.

“With the 180-day deadline still in place, it is critical that the legislature continue to work to enact a law that will protect public safety,” said Madigan, a Democrat from Chicago.

In Chicago, at the second of a series of Illinois House Judiciary Committee hearings, word of the court’s decision seemed to change the tenor of various speakers’ comments. Advocates who for years have fought for gun control legislation took turns urging lawmakers to make sure the bill they pass prohibits guns in places such as schools, hospitals, restaurants, churches, nursing homes and commuter trains.

“It would be a recipe for disaster,” Chicago Transit Authority President Forrest Claypool said of allowing guns on public transportation.

At the same time, gun rights advocates who crowded into the downtown hearing room were buoyed by the court’s ruling. Many applauded several times and smiled when Todd Vandermyde of the National Rifle Association said the court ruling, along with several previous court rulings, left the state no choice but to enact a concealed carry law.

“This is a fundamentally, constitutionally protected civil right,” he said.

Madigan had asked for the entire 10-judge federal appellate court to consider the case after a three-judge panel in December gave lawmakers until June 9 to legalize the concealed carry of firearms. She argued that the ruling conflicts with decisions by other federal appellate courts and goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held.

In a 5-4 decision, with one judge not participating, the court denied Madigan’s request.

The majority did not expand on the opinion written by Judge Richard Posner in December, which said 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.”

Richard Pearson, the executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the ruling makes clear that courts believe the prohibition violates Second Amendment rights. If Madigan opts to appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it’s possible the justices could strike down not only Illinois’ ban on concealed carry, but also gun restrictions in other states, such as New York and Maryland.

“If she does (appeal), I would be happy,” Pearson said. “There’s a very good chance they’ll rule in our favor.”

Madigan has 90 days to decide whether to ask the high court to hear the case.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, are working to craft legislation that could get the approval of legislators from Chicago — a city with some of the strictest gun ordinances in the nation — as well as from the state’s more rural and conservative areas, where there’s more support for gun rights.

Some Republicans and more conservative Democrats say Illinois should be a “shall issue” state, in which anyone who meets prescribed criteria must get a permit to carry. More left-leaning Democrats want to be a “may issue” state, meaning local police could deny a permit even if the applicant’s background is otherwise clear.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat, and other gun control advocates also want any new gun legislation to include a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and to prohibit concealed carry in public places such as sports stadiums and shopping malls.

Vandermyde said he would oppose many of the limits proposed by gun control advocates, saying the cumulative effect of their desired restrictions would amount to a ban — adding that he would not be in favor of prohibiting guns on public transportation.

At least one lawmaker, State Rep. Dennis Reboletti, a Republican from the Chicago suburbs had his own reservations about banning weapons on buses and trains.

“My concern is the gang members will always carry,” Reboletti said, drawing a round of applause from gun rights advocates.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
__________________
Visit http://www.policemisconduct.net to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Obama's Favorite TV show? "Homeland", about a Muslim who betrays his nation on the way to the White House...http://tinyurl.com/c8tvk92
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 02-24-2013, 3:57 PM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Madigan cannot campaign with "clean hands" if she doesn't petition for cert. Win, lose, or draw, Madigan is "locked in." Even if she knows she will lose, it is something she must do, to retain political credibility.
Losing at SCOTUS might actually be to her political advantage. Politicians aren't stupid as far as politics goes. She may see the odds of RKBA becoming every more firmly validated, at least as far as her political era is concerned, and figure she can raise more funds and excite her base better if she thinks she can raise the specter of a re-invigorated gun lobby. If she goes for cert and it is granted, she either looks like she tried all she could or she actually wins and cements her place in certain nationwide politics.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 02-25-2013, 4:06 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
Losing at SCOTUS might actually be to her political advantage. Politicians aren't stupid as far as politics goes. She may see the odds of RKBA becoming every more firmly validated, at least as far as her political era is concerned, and figure she can raise more funds and excite her base better if she thinks she can raise the specter of a re-invigorated gun lobby. If she goes for cert and it is granted, she either looks like she tried all she could or she actually wins and cements her place in certain nationwide politics.
This was the exact political calculus that lead to DC v. Heller.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 02-25-2013, 9:59 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,134
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Mmmmm.

I understand that she is considering running against Gov. Quinn, the issue comes down to this, is a loss at the US Supreme court hurtful to her career.

A win would obviously be better, but to go down fighting especially if the legislature and Gov Quinn don't get a "court acceptable" bill passed by June would mean that she alone could claim to be the defender of "sane gun laws".

What do you guys think, should we call her office and plead with her to go to the SCOTUS.

Perhaps some folks in Chicago can chirp in.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 02-25-2013, 10:01 PM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I dont see any reason that she wouldnt push it. Like I said before, Illinois politicians hate having power taken from them, and will do anything they can to drag this out. And they will be damned to have outsiders, even presumably on the same team, tell them what to do.

I dont see her not petitioning for cert.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:57 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.