Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Committment

They say that when you order bacon & eggs the hen is involved but the pig is committed.

So now that the SC has twice intervened in the CA7 ruling in Moore is the court merely involved or are they now committed? You have to believe that this was a consideration in granting the 2nd extension.

Th CA7 at least (tried?) to put their foot down by stating publicly that their stay was a one-time-only deal. We'll see.....
 
It might be bad to say, but I bet the majority of the citizens in Illinois, wish Cate O'Leary was back, with her cow. Its a shame how large cities in some states control the whole state, and do not care for the wants and rights of the rural people. From Illinois, New York, and California, you can see this as plain as day. I'm glad that Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo don't have that size, but they do still control Ohio.
 
New IL Gov policy for concealed carry/gun owners...

Fox News Channel has a report saying IL's Gov Quinn(D) wants to limit concealed permit/license holder's to only one/01 firearm & only one/01 10 round pistol magazine. :mad:
This to me is stupid. How can a IL resident feel safe or prepared to deal with a violent crime with only one firearm & a "limit" of only 10 rounds/1 pistol magazine.
What if the mag breaks or you need a spare magazine? Can you call "time-out" with the violent bad-guys? :rolleyes:
What if you want to tote a back-up or 2nd gun? IL has cold, windy winters.
If you wanted a back-up J frame or a small back-up Glock 27 sub compact, you'd be a "criminal" under the new laws of Gov Quinn.

The NRA and 2A groups should push to defeat this dumb change.
 
It's actually a little sillier than that, the governor's bill limits a person to one firearm and one 10 round magazine and another 10 cartridges (just not in a magazine)

What do you do with 10 loose rounds? Do you wrap a rubber band around them and carry them in your pocket? Get one of those ammo wallets and only put 10 rounds in it? And what good would they do you if you've already been attacked, expended 10 rounds and need to reload?

These are the nonsensical things that anti-gunners come up with because they are ignorant of firearms.

But the NRA doesn't have to fight this. The sponsor of the bill filed for an over-ride vote. That means legislators have to vote the original HB183 up or down as is - no modifications. The veto will either be over-written or the bill will die. There is no time for the Illinois legislature to craft another carry bill. If the veto is not over-riden, there are only 2 options:

1) Current Illinois UUW law in regards to carry ceases to be in effect after July 9th and people in Illinois have "court" carry - subject to city ordinances

2) Illinois AG Lisa Madigan appeals to SCOTUS and I don't know the legal terms for it, but the effect is that current IL UUW law stays in force while it is heard at SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
A problem that Lisa Madigan and all the anti-gunners in Illinois have is that 10 county states attorneys in Illinois have already said that they are not going to prosecute people simply for carrying.

Many SAs have already laid out a concealed carry law by stipulating the conditions under which they would not charge someone with UUW.

There are dozens and dozens of other counties that were waiting for this to be resolved by the legislature. If there is no resolution, and the whole thing goes to the supreme court, you could expect a lot of anger over it and almost the entire southern part of the state would have defacto carry. Only the State Police would still be arresting people for UUW and only on Illinois highways - but the Illinois Supreme Court already ruled that keeping a firearm in a console means the firearm is not immediately accessible, so unless someone was driving and they had a firearm on them, the State Police wouldn't be able to nab people. You'd have to be dumb not to know the law and set out on the highway with a gun in a IWB or something like that. County Sheriffs have also already gone on record advising that they would not take kindly to state troopers coming into their counties and arresting people off the street for UUW.

So anyway, there is a lot of pressure now on all legislators to over-ride this veto. Even anti-gun politicians are under pressure to just grit their teeth and sign it because the alternative is something that they really really don't want to see.
 
The provision of this bill that kills me the most isn't even one of Quinn's line-items, it's one of those built into the version that passed the senate and house-- that CCW will be prohibited on public transit. What a load of crap. Who needs CCW the most? The people who are out on the street and in the buses and trains all day, all night. Those of us who walk a mile home from the train at 3am. Take a look at the map of the 40 who were shot over the Independence Day holiday-- ALL in transit-dependent neighborhoods. It's the responsible citizens in those neighborhoods that most need their right to self-protection available to them. It's great that you can now carry driving around Naperville and Schamburg, but the hurt that is caused by prohibiting CCW on CTA, denying the right of self-defense to those who need it most, is immeasurable.
 
Who needs CCW the most? The people who are out on the street and in the buses and trains all day, all night.
Click to expand...
Yep, and that wasn't accidental. By prohibiting carry on public transportation, they've pretty much made the law a moot point for the commoners. Aldermen, of course, will still be afforded armed protection on the taxpayers' dime.

I expected this when I read the dissenting opinion. The judge who wrote it mentioned that Illinois might be required to allow carry, but that the right could be rendered impossible to exercise on a place-by-place basis.
 
This coming Monday/Tuesday: end of the uncertainty in Illinois

With the Governor's amendatory veto, this coming Monday and Tuesday loom as the final resolution of the concealed carry situation here in Illinois. I am hopeful that on Monday both houses of the legislature will override the veto, putting the concealed carry bill into law. With all its flaws it is still far better than the status quo, which is that we cannot carry in this state at all. But as I understand the legal situation, if nothing happens on Monday, as of Tueday 7/9, the state's current ban on carrying concealed no longer would be in effect, and thus anyone with a Firearm Owner's ID card could carry legally anywhere in the State, with no prohibitions. So either way, by Tuesday of this week the issue should be settled. Of course, if the new law is passed by overriding the veto, I have no idea how long it will take to implement and I expect that the Chicago leaders will stretch things out as long as they can. With no indication of a lessening of gangbanger violence in this state, concealed carry for self defense cannot come quick enough.
 
So either way, by Tuesday of this week the issue should be settled.
Click to expand...

There is a remote possibility that the veto will not be over-ridden, and Illinois AG immediately appeals to SCOTUS.

It would be really interesting to see how many additional county state's attorneys stopped prosecuting Illinois UUW/AUUW if that happened.
 
I would think that by denying the right to carry on public transportation, you are denying the right of those people who use public transportation exclusively to defend themselves.
 
It's already legal in my county and has been since 09JUN.

Been carrying everyday with nothing more than a 40hr MFT and a FOID card.

40hr MFT is for LEO in this State. But I'm not currently working in that position.
 
”There is a remote possibility that the veto will not be over-ridden, and Illinois AG immediately appeals to SCOTUS.”

I cannot imagine that happening since they have already taken this before SCOTUS - the McDonald case - which is what got them to where they are.

Their only options are to 1) enact a law that will pass the muster of the outcome from McDonald or 2) let the time expire and have constitutional carry - until each locality makes up their own version of a carry law which passes muster from McDonald.

Well, there is a very slim chance that they could ask for more time again - but after being given 180 days, then an additional 30 days, I highly doubt the court will let them kick the can even further down the road. I believe Elvis said it best - "It's now or never!"
 
At this point in time, the only place the State can get an extension of time (to delay the mandate), is from the 7th Circuit who has already said that the last 30 day extension would be it. No more.

If no law is in place by tomorrow (July 9th), then the mandate will be issued.

The mandate can be stayed only if Madigan files for cert and requests the SCOTUS to stay the mandate.

This is a game of who blinks first.
 
Hey, I tried !!!

Like so many politicians, Quinn is just playing it safe. You will never know what is really in his heart as playing politics is more important to these folks. He wants to be able to state, that he did his best to defeat this bill, to his party and constituents. Forget the fact that at last count, there were 12 people shot, in Chicago since last Wednesday. ...... ;)

On T.V., he stated that "We don't want a bunch of drunk people, walking around with guns. Well, who in the he!! does. What he doesn't admit, is that the law is the same as drunk driving. Once you are over the legal limit, you CCW is void. Every day you hear about drunk drivers killing folks and there have been permits that have been taking away for this same reason. ... :)

Be Safe !!!
 
Last edited:
Like so many politicians, Quinn is just playing it safe. You will never know what is really in his heart as playing politics is more important to these folks. He wants to be able to state, that he did his best to defeat this bill, to his party and constituents.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think he's gone beyond covering himself politically. The way I see it, Quinn could have simply signed the bill and told his constituents that the courts and legislature backed him into a corner and gave him no choice. It is obvious that even Chicago would rather have shall-issue than Constitutional carry.

Instead, I think that there are a couple of different things going on right now. First of all, I think Quinn wants to force Madigan's hand and make her appeal to SCOTUS. This way, if SCOTUS upholds the 7th's ruling (and they likely would) he can lay the blame on Madigan for not representing the state well enough (there seems to be a power struggle going on between Quinn and Madigan right now). Secondly, Quinn's position on the issue has been well known for a long time and even the majority of his own party defected and voted for a shall-issue CC bill. This has to be embarrassing to him and, quite frankly, I think that he wants to be obstinate about it because he's angry at the legislature.
 
The politicians in Illinois really know how to create suspense.

They anti-gun Senators are making one more run at making the bill even more restrictive by using trailer bills. This is on the day that the CA7 stay of mandate expires.

Talk about 11th hour maneuvering!
 
Of course.

It's not about serving the majority or the 'will of the people'.

It's 'how can I make myself look good at the polls for the next election'

They don't give a crap about CCW in this state. They're just trying to keep their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top