Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Yes, you would think we would hear something!

I did notice Rahm Emanual (Chicago-Mayor) has rammed through a few new updates on penalties and fines for gun owners.

No big deal, but interesting how quick he can pass things. Will be interesting how big of a deal he makes out of passing a new concealed carry ordinance.
 
I'm not sure Chicago passed any new ordinances - do you have a link?

What I did see was a press statement from Mayor Emanual with Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez calling for longer sentences for felons caught with firearms, They seemed unaware of current Illinois law since the prison terms they were calling for fell within the current range.

They were calling for 5 year terms for repeat offenders and the law currently allows judges to sentence between 3 and 7 years. They also asked that "felon with a weapon" conviction be part of the truth in sentencing guidelines which would mandate that anyone convicted would have to serve 85% of their sentence

But I don't think any of that was prompted by the Moore decision or CCW bills in the Illinois General Assembly.

Hadiya Hadiya Pendleton, who participated in Obama inauguration festivities, was murdered by Michael Ward, a convicted felon out on parole for a weapons charge. I think the press conference was damage control because they knew that 2A advocates would cite lax laws for felons, lax parole guidlines, monitoring and reporting, and sentencing as the problem - not the object used to commit the murder.

I haven't heard of any new laws.
 
Yes, your are right, updates to current, not new. But the point being that the media took hold, had it on the news and then it was passed relatively quickly.

I can't find the link, it is gone.

Yes, and I agree about the tragic H. Pendleton shooting. Now that the truth in that it was a felon on parole, they cannot blame responsible citizens who own and register guns.

It is the same story over and over. The laws on the books are for citizens, not the animals that ignore all laws and do what they want. That has been the problem on the (mostly) south side since forever.

The City of Chicago has a handgun registration requirement, but according to a recent study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, the majority of illegal handguns arrive in Chicago from elsewhere in the state. From 2005-2010, 56 percent of short-time-to-crime guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes were traced back to sources within the State of Illinois, but outside of Chicago.
Click to expand...

All these laws against 2A but nothing that ever or will ever work.

But, thanks, I have not seen anything really new on the present discussion on the upcoming Concealed Carry.
 
Hmmm . . . According to the article:

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.”
Click to expand...

He is deeply mistaken. Perhaps only the Illinois Supreme Court is the only court that can declare an Illinois law unconstitutional under the state constitution, but a federal court most certainly can declare one unconstitutional under the federal constitution.
 
The vote was set for last Friday. Since we have not heard anything, it is pretty safe to assume that there will be no en banc or rehearing. The Court would have notified the parties by now, if there was going to be a rehearing. What we are now waiting for is for a dissenting opinion. Once that is written and notice is given, the clock for time to file for certiorari will start (90 days from that point).

However, the clock for the stay, has been and still is, ticking away. Should AG Madigan file for cert, she can then ask for an extension of the stay, but (generally) not before she files.
 
Quote from the opinion:


The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like the Illinois Supreme Court has anything to do with it.

Does the Illinois Supreme Court take direction from CA7 -would they, on day 181 write an injunction and declare Illinois UUW law unconstitutional, or do they just stand by and do nothing because they don't have to do anything...

Regardless of if this guy Paul Gastiglione for Cook County is right or wrong, I'm curious now about the process and the state supreme court's role in it.
 
Spats, sorry to be unclear.

What I meant to say was that you very kindly said the author of the quote was "deeply mistaken". I thought it was a very diplomatic and graceful way to describe the man.
 
^ He is policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office advising Illinois lawmakers that there is no need for a new law because even after 180 day stay set out by CA7 - current Illinois law is still in force unless and until the Illinois Supreme Court strikes the UUW law down.

I don't know if Chicago Police & Cook County Sherrif's are going to buy into that, but it could make for some interesting civil action for deprivation of rights cases.
 
Luger_carbine said:
It doesn't sound like the Illinois Supreme Court has anything to do with it.

Does the Illinois Supreme Court take direction from CA7 -would they, on day 181 write an injunction and declare Illinois UUW law unconstitutional, or do they just stand by and do nothing because they don't have to do anything...
Click to expand...
Luger_carbine said:
I don't know if Chicago Police & Cook County Sherrif's are going to buy into that, but it could make for some interesting civil action for deprivation of rights cases.
Click to expand...
The Illinois state courts and it's LE agencies can "buy into that" or not, but if they choose "not," they do so at their own peril.

No, the Illinois Supreme Court will not write an injunction on day 181. There is not case pending before it, so it has no jurisdiction to do so. It does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the case. An federal court of appeals has declared that the statute, as written, violates the 2A. Now that the 2A has been incorporated to the states, Illinois law has to be permissible under the 2A. If it is unconstitutional under federal law, it doesn't much matter whether it passes muster on a state level.

Harry: Thank you. I was trying to be nice about it.
 
Here is the essential information from the below link on where things stand in the legislature. There are past opponents to CCW that are defecting from Chicago. Support is building for the shall issue bill and no growing support for a may issue bill - many legislators who opposed CCW before the 7th Circuits decision do not believe may issue would be acceptable to the court so they have essentially moved into the shall issue camp. Now they are arguing about details of shall issue and feeling the pressure of having a working law in place before the deadline.

"Gun control supporters in the Illinois Democratic party talked a pretty good game for the most part at the Illinois House Judiciary hearing earlier this week on guns, but in a closed door meeting yesterday, they were set straight as to the reality of things."

and

"House Democrats were given a lesson in the real-world consequences of ignoring the Seventh Circuit ruling when the 180-day stay expires on June 8th.

The technical review staff (legal beagles) told the Democrats that Alvarez was all wet in her office’s pronouncement and that inaction on passing a carry bill would have dire consequences for gun control in Illinois.

Specifically, House Democrats were told that Illinois would effectively have “Constitutional Carry” where anyone who was eligible to own guns could carry them freely in public without training, licensing, qualification and precious little in the way of restriction.

After a lot of back and forth, one Chicago Representative asked if someone could carry a loaded rifle into the Statehouse. He was told “Yes”.

It was reported that you could hear a pin drop for an uncomfortably long time after that as a stunned silence came over the room.

The bottom line is that non-ideologues on the gun issue have seen the wisdom of voting for a carry bill that affords the state at least some control in the time, place and manner in which Illinois residents, and indeed non-residents, can carry firearms in Illinois.

Of course, there are a handful of die-hards who will never vote for a bill that would allow Illinoisans any firearm rights. But then again, there were no shortage of politicians who opposed Civil Rights legislation of fifty years ago to their dying day. And there were no shortage of politicians who opposed women’s suffrage, either.

Today, we recognize how foolish and bigoted those politicians were in opposing these basic civil rights."



http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5957...have-a-come-to-jesus-moment-on-guns-yesterday
 
DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Rham, Quinn and Both Madigans are getting sick right now!

CC is coming to Illinois, like it is not!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top