Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Illinois Must Honor Concealed Carry Law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Illinois Must Honor Concealed Carry Law

    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for the last time that she MUST honor the Constitution of the United States by doing away with her state’s ban on the concealed carry of firearms.

    It was back in December of last year that a 3 judge panel of the Court found the Illinois law banning concealed carry to be unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court has decided that the [2nd] amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” wrote 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, paraphrasing the opinion of S.C. Justice Samuel Alito. Naturally, the scrupulously liberal Madigan then petitioned the entire 10 member court, hoping that the ruling might be overturned. But the full court refused to reconsider the ruling of the panel.

    And now the Illinois legislature has about 4 months to rewrite its unconstitutional ban into something acceptable to groups which strictly preserve the 2ndAmendment rights of the American people. And that is the REAL question: will the ONLY remaining state to disallow concealed carry abide by the ruling of the court by creating an honest and reasonable statute? If so, it will represent a truly staggering break with the leftist-inspired, Illinois tradition of governing as though rights were privileges of which the common classes are rarely if ever deserving.

    After the 2010 McDonald v Chicago decision in which the Supreme Court struck down the city’s decades-old, unconstitutional handgun ban, brainless thug Mayor Richard Daley and city officials crafted a new ordinance to “comply” with the ruling. Naturally, this group of self-serving thieves and political prostitutes sought only to defy the Court with an ordinance which limited each person to ONE operable weapon; allowed no gun to be taken outside the home; prohibited the existence of gun stores and firing ranges within the city; mandated “approved” training and marksmanship; charged $100 for a 3 year pistol permit; banned handguns the police superintendent considered “unsafe due to their size” and, of course, required fingerprinting of gun owners and registration of their weapons. Needless to say, these provisions did NOT apply to law enforcement or certain city officials.

    Since that time, constitutional rights groups have been in court with the City of Chicago on a seemingly daily basis, suing to terminate the Daley legacy of wanton abrogation of liberty. On three occasions, the city has lost court decisions to the NRA and twice Rahm Emanuel has decided to amend the Daley ordinance, “…conceding that the city had little chance of successfully defending lawsuits against certain aspects of it.”

    Incredibly, Chicago City Corporation Counsel Steve Patton has accused the NRA and others of “…cherry-pick[ing] the things they thought they could marshal a challenge (on).” How does one “cherry-pick” UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions in a city ordinance? Could anything be more typical of a Chicago official than to whine because the city’s assault on freedom has been found unacceptable by those who prefer liberty to the beneficent dictatorship of nanny-state hoodlums!

    Leftist Governor Pat Quinn is not likely to provide Illinois residents with the 2nd Amendment rights to which they are entitled. The 7th Circuit has given lawmakers till mid-year to write a constitutional law. Don’t be surprised if the state is once again before the bench by year end.

    I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

  • #2
    They'll just pass something like Cali or New York which makes it so difficult to obtain a CHL that they might as well be banned.
    2004 Suzuki DL650
    1996 Hy-Tek Hurricane 103

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Downs View Post
      They'll just pass something like Cali or New York which makes it so difficult to obtain a CHL that they might as well be banned.
      Wont matter if one of those universal reciprocity laws comes down.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pokulski-Blatz View Post
        Wont matter if one of those universal reciprocity laws comes down.
        It will be glorious when they get federal dollars pulled for not adhering to one.
        ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

        Comment


        • #5
          Slow progress, but progress none the less...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pokulski-Blatz View Post
            Wont matter if one of those universal reciprocity laws comes down.
            And honestly I'm kinda torn on it. If a state wants to be a freedom hating cesspit so be it. I'll go to another state that wants to love freedom.

            That's just me thinking from a state's rights perspective.
            2004 Suzuki DL650
            1996 Hy-Tek Hurricane 103

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Downs View Post
              And honestly I'm kinda torn on it. If a state wants to be a freedom hating cesspit so be it. I'll go to another state that wants to love freedom.

              That's just me thinking from a state's rights perspective.
              While the state has rights ... it will never have the right to ignore the bill of rights. That is what the supreme court is saying ... no CCW = disregarding the second amendment.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pokulski-Blatz View Post
                While the state has rights ... it will never have the right to ignore the bill of rights. That is what the supreme court is saying ... no CCW = disregarding the second amendment.
                Then why have a State Constitution in every single state? Our Constitution spells out what the federal gov. can and can't do.

                Check out Cali's Constitution says about the right to bear arms. They have nothing in there. Texas does but it allows the state to regulate the display of arms.

                2004 Suzuki DL650
                1996 Hy-Tek Hurricane 103

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Downs View Post
                  Then why have a State Constitution in every single state? Our Constitution spells out what the federal gov. can and can't do.

                  Check out Cali's Constitution says about the right to bear arms. They have nothing in there. Texas does but it allows the state to regulate the display of arms.


                  < Not a lawyer.

                  I still don't think that anything that a state constitution has to say trumps what the bill of rights give each and every one of us.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Downs View Post
                    Then why have a State Constitution in every single state? Our Constitution spells out what the federal gov. can and can't do.

                    Check out Cali's Constitution says about the right to bear arms. They have nothing in there. Texas does but it allows the state to regulate the display of arms.

                    Explain further please. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your meaning.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Downs View Post
                      Then why have a State Constitution in every single state? Our Constitution spells out what the federal gov. can and can't do.

                      Check out Cali's Constitution says about the right to bear arms. They have nothing in there. Texas does but it allows the state to regulate the display of arms.

                      I think it would be more accurate to say that our constitution spells out what the federal government can do, and reserves all other rights to the states.

                      The state constitutions covers a lot of things not covered by the Federal constitution. This allows a state to, in part, govern the powers not delegated to the federal government.

                      They happen to overlap in 2nd amendment issues in some states, but not all.

                      Originally posted by Pokulski-Blatz View Post
                      < Not a lawyer.

                      I still don't think that anything that a state constitution has to say trumps what the bill of rights give each and every one of us.
                      I would say this is accurate. Take a look at the 13th amendment. No matter how much one of the southern states may have wanted to, after the passing of the 13th amendment they could not (legally) allow slavery, even if it were in their constitution.
                      "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
                      -Gerald Ford/Thomas Jefferson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Downs View Post
                        And honestly I'm kinda torn on it. If a state wants to be a freedom hating cesspit so be it. I'll go to another state that wants to love freedom.

                        That's just me thinking from a state's rights perspective.
                        Part of the issue is that the Chicago area is imposing it's will upon the rest of the state. Southern and Mid Illinois is very pro gun. It is only when you get to Northern IL that things get wacky..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sgt Beavis View Post
                          Part of the issue is that the Chicago area is imposing it's will upon the rest of the state. Southern and Mid Illinois is very pro gun. It is only when you get to Northern IL that things get wacky..
                          Exactly, outside of Chicago here is a ton of pro gun support. I have met some of the most hardcore gun and hunting guys I know in IL.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slow06 View Post
                            I think it would be more accurate to say that our constitution spells out what the federal government can do, and reserves all other rights to the states.

                            The state constitutions covers a lot of things not covered by the Federal constitution. This allows a state to, in part, govern the powers not delegated to the federal government.

                            They happen to overlap in 2nd amendment issues in some states, but not all.



                            I would say this is accurate. Take a look at the 13th amendment. No matter how much one of the southern states may have wanted to, after the passing of the 13th amendment they could not (legally) allow slavery, even if it were in their constitution.
                            This is correct. The constitution limits the federal government and the state constitutions limit the states. Then you have town charters, county charters and so forth that split up the remaining authority on down to the individual.
                            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Basically you just need to know and understand the 10th amendment, then you will know that the 2nd amendment trumps state constitutions because it is a RIGHT granted to ALL US citizens, no matter the state. It basically means that it is a "power" (right) granted to ALL people (not state or federal govt) and thus supersedes any state or federal law that infringes on the "right to keep and bear arms".
                              Originally posted by stevo
                              Not a good idea to go Tim 'The Toolman' Taylor on the power phallus.

                              Stevo

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X