Land of Lincoln proposal.. SHALL ISSUE! (ILLINOIS)

[safewaysecurity]

The bill was better than previous internerations, and they need 3/5's vote of both Houses to pass. We can't have Chicago playing games with carry laws.

WE hold all the cards right now. If they don't pass a law it's constitutional carry for all and Chicago knows that. We could definitely get state preemption. Also why Casinos and libraries and colleges? All those places would be legal anyways in a few months... ugh w/e. Better than nothing I guess.

[Sakiri]

No, Chicago has 2 choices. Either shall issue or constitutional carry. Which do you think would choose? The court gave them a certain amount of days before ALL carry laws become moot.

You missed the timeframe I was speaking of.

When they said "you need to have a concealed carry law on the books by X", they never once stated what TYPE of policy, may issue or shall issue, that they law needed to have.

Speculation in the beginning was that they would shoot for may issue. I personally expected them to do it. If they had been forced "shall issue or constitutional carry", it would have even bigger ramifications nationwide, not to discount the ramifications it's currently having regardless.

[rootuser]

You missed the timeframe I was speaking of.

When they said "you need to have a concealed carry law on the books by X", they never once stated what TYPE of policy, may issue or shall issue, that they law needed to have.

Speculation in the beginning was that they would shoot for may issue. I personally expected them to do it. If they had been forced "shall issue or constitutional carry", it would have even bigger ramifications nationwide, not to discount the ramifications it's currently having regardless.

This is what I have been saying all along but others seem to want me to believe it will be "shall issue" because of the court's wording around "reasonable". I think "may issue" may still stand as "reasonable". This is what worries me because at the end of the day it may only entrench what CA already has in place.

[Gray Peterson]

WE hold all the cards right now. If they don't pass a law it's constitutional carry for all and Chicago knows that. We could definitely get state preemption. Also why Casinos and libraries and colleges? All those places would be legal anyways in a few months... ugh w/e. Better than nothing I guess.

Some things cannot be discussed publicly. We do NOT hold all of the cards. Our hand is stronger, we have more cards, but we don't have all of them.

[mrrsquared79]

The flaw I read in the law is the requirement that an applicant release medical records to the state. From all my experience as a labor negotiator one can not voluntarily relinquish a right in law as a qualifier to employment. The example would be to voluntarily relinquish any protection under the worker's compensation law, say in the case of an individual with numerous previous injuries, prior to employment. Even asking such questions on employment forms or in interviews is prohibited.

It is also true that to require a mandatory relinquishing of other enumerated rights, those requiring due process and the prohibition against self-incrimination, as well as the right to privacy, to exercise another, the right to keep and bear arms, would not pass judicial muster.

Medical records only apply to treatment of defect, disease and trauma, with many procedures and treatments sometimes applicable to mental defect also being used to treat unrelated disease. Off label use of medications or medication with a wide range of indications do not substantiate, of themselves, a disqualifying diagnosis of mental defect. Use of these medications, or treatments for certain neuroses such as PTSD, or depression, certainly do not constitute due process sufficient to arbitrarily declare the individual a danger to self and others, in order to deny the individual's Second Amendment right. I believe that this section of the law is unconstitutional.

I also believe that charging any fee, for whatever reason, to apply for, and maintain, a permit to exercise an enumerated right is unconstitutional. This is no different than charging a fee to register to vote or cast a ballot. In these instances the interest of the state in "reasonably" regulating an enumerated right is entirely at the state's discretion, they choose to do so, with the alternative being Constitutional Carry free from encumbrances of the state, as in Vermont and Arizona. Inasmuch as this regulation is being imposed by the state, as a deliberate controlling burden to the citizen, all costs must be born by the state, and constitute a mandated expenditure not subject to discretionary funding limits. It is repugnant to the Constitution that any right be licensed, or subject to prior proof of qualification to exercise, so that all costs of regulatory administration ought to be born by the state and/or subdivisions of the state. This is especially true in the case of the Second Amendment, where the right exists specifically to allow the people to defend against criminal attack and for the purposes of providing a check and balance against governmental excess.

There are other areas that leave the door open to trickery and noncompliance, but I am most concerned about substituting bureaucratic discretion for judicial due process in declaring medical records evidence of mental defect and legal insanity.

My thoughts exactly, how can we be forced to give up/relinquish one right(privacy) to exercise another(RKBA)? I too thought this was not allowed?

[rootuser]

My thoughts exactly, how can we be forced to give up/relinquish one right(privacy) to exercise another(RKBA)? I too thought this was not allowed?

There is no explicate right to privacy in the constitution however it is generally assume the 4th, 5th and 9th sum to that right.

It is well within the states rights to check your medical records. What is not clear is what those records can be used for.

[press1280]

This is what I have been saying all along but others seem to want me to believe it will be "shall issue" because of the court's wording around "reasonable". I think "may issue" may still stand as "reasonable". This is what worries me because at the end of the day it may only entrench what CA already has in place.

There's not nearly enough support in the legislature for may-issue. The Chicago pols screwed up by blocking the watered down shall-issue bill last year, so the downstaters are pissed and will not flip this time around.
In theory though your concern might be valid if this decision were applied to CA or NY. That's why the split between Moore and Kachalsky isn't quite on target.

[rootuser]

There's not nearly enough support in the legislature for may-issue. The Chicago pols screwed up by blocking the watered down shall-issue bill last year, so the downstaters are pissed and will not flip this time around.
In theory though your concern might be valid if this decision were applied to CA or NY. That's why the split between Moore and Kachalsky isn't quite on target.

Yeah that's what I mentioned earlier as well about the split, and although explained to me by Gene and others, I'll take a wait and see attitude. I for one thought this would have little bearing if any on CA either way it comes out.

Thanks for the insight in to the "other than Chicago" people that seem to be ignored in Illinois.

[Rail]

The thing that had me thinking they would at least try for may issue is the fact that Chicago hates guns. HATES guns. If they could get a may issue law in place, and then work it like SF and LA counties do, they'd be peachy.

No, certain politicians and lakefront liberals in Chicago hate guns, and that's not even true for much of the latter crowd. I know this because I lived there for two years and still frequently visit, and the topic does occasionally come up in public conversation, but no one makes a big deal about it and goes off on some anti-gun tirade.

A big reason this whole thing has been making progress in the past couple of years aside from Moore is that the biggest obstacle, Mayor Richard Daley, is no longer in office, and his successor, while anti-gun... isn't as rabid about this particular issue. Chicago is currently not New York, Boston, San Francisco, or Washington DC.

[Sakiri]

Rail, when I mention Chicago, as in Chicago hates guns, Im referring to the rabid dogs that chew the heads off anyone that even wants to legally carry a gun in the city. You know, the idjits running the joint that we have to beat with sticks? Even in this state the majority eith dont mind guns, like guns, or dont care. Sadly some of the "dont care" crowd sheeps with the "doesnt like" and it gets ugly.

[Wrangler John]

There is no explicate right to privacy in the constitution however it is generally assume the 4th, 5th and 9th sum to that right.

It is well within the states rights to check your medical records. What is not clear is what those records can be used for.

If it was well within the right of a state to check medical records, then why do they have to ask for a waiver under HIPPA? Nor do I see anywhere in the Bill of Rights any statement to the effect that the individual has to prove suitability, medical or otherwise, to qualify for a right. Something about innocence until proven guilty, and that the law cannot judge guilt before an actual violation of law, or an omission that causes injury, has been committed. Mere thought crimes without any action towards committing an act is not punishable. I am sure there is a more concise Latin phrase for this principle. Mea culpa flatulo, or something.

If we change the subject from concealed weapons permits or Second Amendment rights generally, to the privilege of voting wherein the same rules would apply, how loud would be the protest? Who would be protesting? Just think of the effect on low-information voters and voter fraud, if a background check was required, proof of residency, photo ID, issuance of a voter's registration card with picture or other biometric data, proof of mental competence, proof of training on federal and state constitutional law in a 40 hour fee for service course (and/or a national requirement for completion of such a certificate course at the high school level), a fingerprint and photo taken at the time of casting a ballot, and elimination of mail-in and absentee voting in favor of mandatory appearance at a polling place. All reasonable requirements wouldn't you agree?

Which is more harmful to a constitutional republic; the ill informed or fraudulent voter, or the armed citizen?

It's either a right or it isn't.

[sandman21]

The BOR is not a comprehensive list of rights it was never meant to be.

Look how great the NRA is doing can comb your medical records, have to notify, and mandatory training, and a good list of sensitive places and no state preemption. Winning??? Or holding on?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

If it was well within the right of a state to check medical records, then why do they have to ask for a waiver under HIPPA? Nor do I see anywhere in the Bill of Rights any statement to the effect that the individual has to prove suitability, medical or otherwise, to qualify for a right. Something about innocence until proven guilty, and that the law cannot judge guilt before an actual violation of law, or an omission that causes injury, has been committed. Mere thought crimes without any action towards committing an act is not punishable. I am sure there is a more concise Latin phrase for this principle. Mea culpa flatulo, or something.

If we change the subject from concealed weapons permits or Second Amendment rights generally, to the privilege of voting wherein the same rules would apply, how loud would be the protest? Who would be protesting? Just think of the effect on low-information voters and voter fraud, if a background check was required, proof of residency, photo ID, issuance of a voter's registration card with picture or other biometric data, proof of mental competence, proof of training on federal and state constitutional law in a 40 hour fee for service course (and/or a national requirement for completion of such a certificate course at the high school level), a fingerprint and photo taken at the time of casting a ballot, and elimination of mail-in and absentee voting in favor of mandatory appearance at a polling place. All reasonable requirements wouldn't you agree?

Which is more harmful to a constitutional republic; the ill informed or fraudulent voter, or the armed citizen?

It's either a right or it isn't.

I am SO going to use this in my daily life.


The Raisuli

[PhillyGunner]

If it was well within the right of a state to check medical records, then why do they have to ask for a waiver under HIPPA? Nor do I see anywhere in the Bill of Rights any statement to the effect that the individual has to prove suitability, medical or otherwise, to qualify for a right. Something about innocence until proven guilty, and that the law cannot judge guilt before an actual violation of law, or an omission that causes injury, has been committed. Mere thought crimes without any action towards committing an act is not punishable. I am sure there is a more concise Latin phrase for this principle. Mea culpa flatulo, or something.

If we change the subject from concealed weapons permits or Second Amendment rights generally, to the privilege of voting wherein the same rules would apply, how loud would be the protest? Who would be protesting? Just think of the effect on low-information voters and voter fraud, if a background check was required, proof of residency, photo ID, issuance of a voter's registration card with picture or other biometric data, proof of mental competence, proof of training on federal and state constitutional law in a 40 hour fee for service course (and/or a national requirement for completion of such a certificate course at the high school level), a fingerprint and photo taken at the time of casting a ballot, and elimination of mail-in and absentee voting in favor of mandatory appearance at a polling place. All reasonable requirements wouldn't you agree?

Which is more harmful to a constitutional republic; the ill informed or fraudulent voter, or the armed citizen?

It's either a right or it isn't.

Nice Post. Right on.

[Paladin]

Next key date in Sheperd-Moore is Feb 6th, that's when we find out if CA-7 takes it en banc.

If not, IL may appeal to SCOTUS by March (12th or 14th).

If SCOTUS declines or IL doesn't appeal, IL must have Shall Issue in place by June 10th or IL goes to immediate judicially imposed Con Carry.

bump

I guess if we don't hear by Monday night, something's changed....