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
  #41  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:41 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In before Brady Campaign claims this was a victory for their cause.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ne...amendment.aspx
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:43 AM
todd2968's Avatar
todd2968 todd2968 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default Conceal carry Illinois

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/art...aw-4108504.php



This is the last state!!! Now if we can get is RIGHT TO CARRY
__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER
VFW LIFEMEMBER

Last edited by todd2968; 12-11-2012 at 9:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:43 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,492
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I'm thinking this is our biggest win since McDonald, and virtually gurantees carry rights get fast tracked to the SCOTUS.
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:44 AM
asm777's Avatar
asm777 asm777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 176
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gemoose23 View Post
Beat me to it!

Quote:
"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," the judges ruled.
This is good!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:45 AM
Damn True Damn True is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,396
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another piece on the same case.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saf...ois-2012-12-11
__________________
My personal blog: The Damn True Experiment
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:46 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asm777 View Post
Beat me to it!


This is good!
Gotta love that statement......finally a Judge with the balls to tell the lower courts to quit eff'ing around and pretending like Heller doesnt say what it plainly says!
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:52 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,273
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I like this bit - After quoting Masciandaro,
Quote:
Fair enough; but that “vast terra incognita” has been opened to judicial exploration by Heller and McDonald. There is no turning back by the lower federal courts,
at p 19.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:53 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story

Quote:
“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.”
So in otherwords.....her intention is to try and pull that Ezell crap again and pass a law that basically makes any form of functional carry impossible.

Hey lady.....you know what other states are doing? They're letting people carry guns nearly everywhere......and NOTHING has gotten out of control! Wake the EFF UP!!!
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:57 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This is the best news I've seen in months! Justice is served!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:58 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This looks like a clear split with the reasoning in Kalchalsky, at least in terms of scrutiny, the public safety interest, and the recognition that concealed carry is the modern means of carry in most states.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:59 AM
ebourqui ebourqui is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oakley, CA
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the subject. Having said that, from a quick read of the decision, I gather that the court simply struck down the outright prohibition of concealed carry. They do see restrictions as to who can have a permit as acceptable:

Quote:
New York “decided not to ban handgun possession, but to limit it to those individuals who have an actual reason (’proper cause’) to carry the weapon. In this vein , licensing is oriented to the Second Amendment’s protections…. [I ]nstead of forbidding anyone from carrying a handgun in public, New York took a more moderate approach to fulfilling its important objective and reasonably concluded that only individuals having a bona fide reason to possess handguns should be allowed to introduce them into the public sphere.”
The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws (under the law’s “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public, such as being the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive than Illinois’s law.
as well as training requirements to be acceptable:

Quote:
...some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.
There's a ton of space between Illinois' law (complete prohibition of carry) and shall issue.

My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."

Last edited by ebourqui; 12-11-2012 at 10:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:59 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How soon will we see a cert petition for Kachalsky? Not a second too soon will it be for this to get stuffed sideways down New York's throat.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.

Last edited by yellowfin; 12-11-2012 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:14 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebourqui View Post
I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the subject. Having said that, from a quick read of the decision, I gather that the court simply struck down the outright prohibition of concealed carry. They do see restrictions as to who can have a permit as acceptable:



as well as training requirements to be acceptable:



There's a ton of space between Illinois' law (complete prohibition of carry) and shall issue.

My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."
The 7th Circuit noted that New York's ban on public bearing of arms was more moderate than Illinois' complete ban. However, the majority opinion then criticized (gently) the Kachalsky analysis. I think Posner is trying to subtly advise the Illinois legislature that a licensing scheme that denies virtually all law-abiding people from public bearing will not fly.

Also, do read the dissent. I thought it was well done with regards to the S. Ct.'s language that precluding weapons in sensitive places is presumptively constitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:17 AM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Dazed & Confused
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 6,130
iTrader: 250 / 100%
Default

At least its in a better direction than most of the rulings over the last 20 years. Now if we don't get too many crazies taking out mass amounts of people on Army bases, campuses, and movie theaters we might actually get our gun rights back.

The worst part of the past recent slayings is the schools and Army knew they had issues with each one of the shooters, yet due to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND FEAR OF PRIVACY CONCERNS, the shooters were allowed to vocalize their desire to kill mass amounts of people and walked free to do so.

The laws are in place to stop mass mayham, the desire and reporting mechanisms are just not there in some spheres of our society.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:19 AM
Bargearse's Avatar
Bargearse Bargearse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Gotta love that statement......finally a Judge with the balls to tell the lower courts to quit eff'ing around and pretending like Heller doesnt say what it plainly says!
Gotta love that statement......finally a Judge with the balls full of LEAD to tell the lower courts to quit eff'ing around and pretending like Heller doesnt say what it plainly says!

Fix for ya!
__________________
Quote:
On Second Amendment:

You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

President Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:24 AM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The fact that this came out in time for the 9th to have this shoved up their noses before ruling on Peruta and the others is interesting. The 9th now has a very stark choice -- rule consistently with the 7th, or open a circuit split a mile wide. Of course, I guess we already have a split with Kalchalsky -- I wonder if the 9th will try to thread the needle?
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:29 AM
wilit's Avatar
wilit wilit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 37.78514° North 122.40100° West
Posts: 4,970
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

I like they allowed an unconstitutional law to stand for an additional 180 days to allow the legislature to craft another unconstitutional law.

Good win though. Will be interesting to see if Illinois petitons SCOTUS or finds a work around with a new law.

Sent from the depths of the S3 Galaxy via Tapatalk 2
__________________
"If a man hasn't found something worth dying for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"You have to be willing to swing your nuts like a deadblow hammer to put these jackasses in their place." - AJAX22
"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry." - William F Buckley Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:34 AM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd be suprised if Illinois didn't go the way of CA and have a CCW statute in name only for all intents and purposes.
__________________
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
  #59  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:38 AM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This is an epic win.

So far, Chicago has been barely holding back the rising tide of support in Illinois for shall-issue carry licensing. I think this ruling just blew the dam.

2008: Heller.
2010: McDonald.
2012: Moore.
I can't wait to see what we do in 2014. After that, it'll just be a matter of mopping up the Wehrwolves.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:38 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I just can't believe how awesome this decision is. The panel squarely dealt with the second amendment. No dancing around the issue, no coy tactics. It is pure 2A awesomeness. There is no doubt in my mind that this case is the biggest win we have had since 2010 in McDonald. It's pure joy. I'd quote some of it for you, but it's an easy read and everyone should take time to read it. It's not written in legalese.



Big congrats to David Sigale and SAF. Whoo Hoo!
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 12-11-2012 at 10:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:38 AM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,749
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:42 AM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilit View Post
I like they allowed an unconstitutional law to stand for an additional 180 days to allow the legislature to craft another unconstitutional law.
What happens if the legislature cannot come up with a law in said 180 days?

What happens if the pro-gun elements delay, disagree, etc and nothing is passed, the judgement kicks in, the law is unconstitutional - people suddenly have the right to carry outside of the home - and there is no permit requirement codified in the state...does that mean Vermont/Constitutional Carry?

I wonder if that 180-day ticking time bomb is enough to actually drive the anti-gunners to strive for actual consensus?

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:48 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It is awesome, but any language suggesting that a fundamental right can be denied to all but those with an elevated "need" is indeed disturbing. How on earth can a fundamental right be reserved for only a select few? Bearing is either a rights-based activity, or a need-based activity. Its basis for protection cannot be both. As Gura has often said, "The Second Amendment is not located among a bill of needs.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:50 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

^Chris, what language you are referring to? The panel addressed NY law, but they said they disagreed with their reasoning.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:57 AM
hvengel hvengel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 440
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."

Just to be clear the ruling did apply heightened scrutiny as the above quote clearly states that rational basis does not apply to this case. There were other places in the ruling that implied strict scrutiny was the standard for when self defense was what was being infringed, as was the case here, but I don't remember reading anywhere where this court said it applied to this case specifically since the reasons for the ban being raised by the state were only rational there was no reason for them to go there. But I think this will be seen as a strict scrutiny ruling by other courts.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:02 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebourqui View Post
I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the subject. Having said that, from a quick read of the decision, I gather that the court simply struck down the outright prohibition of concealed carry. They do see restrictions as to who can have a permit as acceptable:



as well as training requirements to be acceptable:



There's a ton of space between Illinois' law (complete prohibition of carry) and shall issue.

My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."
The thing is Heller/McD clearly made the 2A an individual right for ALL law-abiding citizens. This decisions then goes on to state that "bear" means outside the home and cannot be divorced from "the right to "keep". Therefore if ALL law-abiding citizens have a fundamental 2A right to keep.....how could any court justify "demonstrating need" to exercise the 2nd part. It could just never fly.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:07 AM
ilbob ilbob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankW438 View Post
Last year, we were about 3 votes short of having a SUPERMAJORITY to pass a shall-issue carry law with full pre-emption of local laws. I think we can rally enough votes to defeat and watered-down may-issue law.

As to level of scrutiny, we may get a few hints here:




I think this may equate to Heller's level of scrutiny.
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:07 AM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...l-issue-state/
__________________
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
  #69  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:10 AM
SFgiants105's Avatar
SFgiants105 SFgiants105 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

At the very least, we need open carry back. I was appalled when I heard about that the first time. I was thinking "Really? Unloaded open carry is illegal?"

Just goes to show that for all the accusations against Republicans for using fear-based tactics in the political arena, Democrats use them just as much. Apparently, the average California voter doesn't understand the loopholes residents here have to jump through to obtain a legal firearm; if they did, they might reason that someone who legally owns a firearm in this state is not very likely to commit a a crime with that weapon
__________________
Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal

-Immortal Technique


Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:11 AM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

eh hem...........SUCK IT ANTI'S!!!!


Very happy to see that a court is finally saying "look, this is the way things are. You can't just ignore the parts of the Constitution you don't like." I hope this is used to further the Constitutional Carry battle plan and make it so that we can carry anywhere, anytime, ANY STATE!
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:13 AM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 603
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_cg View Post
The fact that this came out in time for the 9th to have this shoved up their noses before ruling on Peruta and the others is interesting. The 9th now has a very stark choice -- rule consistently with the 7th, or open a circuit split a mile wide. Of course, I guess we already have a split with Kalchalsky -- I wonder if the 9th will try to thread the needle?
The 9th could easily rule that, unlike IL, CA doesn't have a complete ban on carrying, and that may-issue with not-completely-arbitrary good cause is sufficient. It wouldn't be a gigantic split. It would mean los angeles would have to dribble out a few permits every year (after a couple years of litigation, naturally), but wouldn't help peruta or richards at all.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:16 AM
socal2310 socal2310 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Camarillo, CA (Ventura County)
Posts: 808
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.
I'm praying for the Illinois legislature to either dither enough to prevent any legislation from making it through, or to go full retard and pass a law that is a slap in the face to the honorable Judge Posner.

Ryan
__________________
Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:18 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,719
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.
Ultimately it will be "essentially shall issue" with fights around some trivia and bureaucratic behaviors.

IL will be at least Sacramento. Chicago will try every delay tactic and there may be more litigation for Chitown than rest of IL, but some of this may just resolve as state matter [a la state preemption], unsure. Remember IL is only a few legislative votes shy from carry.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:21 AM
1BigPea's Avatar
1BigPea 1BigPea is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Orange County, Ca
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh I can't wait to see how the Brady's spin this one! "There will be blood flowing down the streets as wild lawless men run around with guns in both hands!"

The Brady's and gun banners just don't get it! When law abiding citizens legally carry concealed crime rates go DOWN!


This is an awesome win for RKBA!!! Way to get it right 7th!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:23 AM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
What happens if the legislature cannot come up with a law in said 180 days?

What happens if the pro-gun elements delay, disagree, etc and nothing is passed, the judgement kicks in, the law is unconstitutional - people suddenly have the right to carry outside of the home - and there is no permit requirement codified in the state...does that mean Vermont/Constitutional Carry?

I wonder if that 180-day ticking time bomb is enough to actually drive the anti-gunners to strive for actual consensus?

-- Michael


Winner winner chicken dinner. We've got them right where we want them now. Before this decision, we were begging them to sign onto our bill so we could get it passed with a supermajority. Now they'll be begging us to pass some bill, any bill to avoid court-imposed constitutional carry in six months.

We could hold that threat over the antis' heads and use it to roll back some of Illinois's other gun laws in exchange for passing a shall-issue law instead of letting constitutional carry happen.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:26 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,330
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.
According to TTAG, the NRA claims it will be shall issue, citing the fact that they control both houses...


So when do the animated GIFs showing states allowing carry get updated?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:28 AM
FrankW438 FrankW438 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob View Post
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.
This is true, Bob. But it only takes one house to block bad legislation. The possibility of appeals aside, the anti's don't want to play chicken with the "IL Carry Cliff." If they don't agree to what we want, we'll have Constitutional Carry on June 10th, 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:30 AM
FrankW438 FrankW438 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointedstick View Post
Winner winner chicken dinner. We've got them right where we want them now. Before this decision, we were begging them to sign onto our bill so we could get it passed with a supermajority. Now they'll be begging us to pass some bill, any bill to avoid court-imposed constitutional carry in six months.

We could hold that threat over the antis' heads and use it to roll back some of Illinois's other gun laws in exchange for passing a shall-issue law instead of letting constitutional carry happen.
Great minds think alike! I didn't think about using this as leverage to repeal the FOID card...
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:32 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob View Post
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.
Remember we had it in the Senate too! They just didn't have a veto proof super majority in the Senate. They were about 2-3 votes off I believe. But think about it. With this decision any of the people sitting on the fence with this issue they have an order from the court to do something. Now they can't make the "everywhere in Illinois BUT Chicago/Cook County" argument. We'e got them by the nuts. Pass an omnibus carry bill that has as few restrictions as possible and even loosens up some other gun restrictions in there as well because if they do nothing they will get an unfortunate court smackdown.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:32 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob View Post
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.
The problem is that in 6 months, if they haven't passed something, this ruling kicks in and IL goes defacto Constitutional Carry....which I'm sure is their worst nightmare. So they're gonna hafta play ball if they want to have any say at all in what the carry rights will look like in that state.

Cuz all the pro-carry side needs to do is refuse to give in on stupid, ridiculous restrictions, knowing that defacto Constitutional Carry is just a ticking clock away!
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
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 7:35 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.