Sign in to follow this  
Uncooperative Tom

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Recommended Posts

Well, there is that other "notable exception" to Chicago's gun rules. Anti-gun Chicago politicians get the kid-glove treatment.

 

Chicago State Sen. Donne Trotter worked out a plea bargain with local prosecutors that saw felony gun charges reduced to a misdemeanor.

Trotter faced up to three years in prison for trying to board an airplane with a .25 cal. Beretta in his luggage back in December. What he got was a year of court supervision and 60 hours of community service, which he apparently will fulfill by delivering anti-gun lectures to school kids.

Trotter’s explanation for having the gun in Chicago, which had an effective ban on handguns for 20 years, was that he, a 63-year-old lawyer and politician, was working as a security guard.

 

 

It's believable only because lots of lawyer/politicians moonlight as security guards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick tock, June 9th is coming...

 

It looks like Illinois has some chance of meeting the 180 day deadline set by the 7th Circuit last December to reform their unconstitutional gun laws, but there is still a lot of disagreement.

 

Illinois House Approves Gun Bill Opposed By Governor

 

Gun owners in the only state still banning concealed weapons would win that right under a plan approved by the Illinois House on Friday, but the governor and other powerful Democrats oppose the plan because it would wipe out local gun ordinances — including Chicago‘s ban on assault weapons.

The proposal, which passed 85-30, was brokered by House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, as a way to abide by a federal appeals court’s ruling that ordered the state to adopt a concealed-carry law by June 9.

...

Madigan took the rare step on the floor of describing how he had worked against that Phelps plan in April — legislation which still got double the number of votes Chicago Democrats garnered on a more restrictive measure.

“Those vote counts are very telling,” Madigan said. “They tell the reason why I stand before you today, changing a position I’ve advocated for well over 20 years. But that’s what happens in a democracy, where there’s free and open debate.”

He said the state needed one uniform firearms law to reduce the potential confusion for gun owners packing weapons and traveling throughout the Prairie State. There are 220 “home rule” communities which are free from state oversight to devise local guidelines on any issue, including guns. If June 9 comes and goes without a law, each of those municipalities could write its own restrictions, he said.

“The effect of not taking any action would be to open up the possibility that there could be up to 220 different sets of rules on the question of carrying weapons, so that as people attempted to move about the state, they would contemplate the possibility that there would be a change in the rules up to 220 times,” Madigan said.

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago Sun Times is in a full panic over the passage of Illinois' new gun laws.

 

At a time when gunfire claims life after life on city streets, when the horrors of mass killing after mass killing stun the nation, the Illinois Legislature has chosen to make it easier to let guns get into the hands of criminals. Gov. Pat Quinn has no choice but to veto this shameful legislation, though it cleared both houses in the General Assembly with veto-proof margins.

 

It starts to get melodramatic from there. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago Sun Times is in a full panic over the passage of Illinois' new gun laws.

 

At a time when gunfire claims life after life on city streets, when the horrors of mass killing after mass killing stun the nation, the Illinois Legislature has chosen to make it easier to let guns get into the hands of criminals. Gov. Pat Quinn has no choice but to veto this shameful legislation, though it cleared both houses in the General Assembly with veto-proof margins.

 

It starts to get melodramatic from there. :lol:

 

Well, they did not really choose to do it, some guys in robes kind of forced their hand. I did not read the whole thing, but it seems like they may have actually done the right thing. Doing nothing and letting every municipality set up it's own rules would have created a much bigger mess for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Chicago Sun Times is in a full panic over the passage of Illinois' new gun laws.

 

At a time when gunfire claims life after life on city streets, when the horrors of mass killing after mass killing stun the nation, the Illinois Legislature has chosen to make it easier to let guns get into the hands of criminals. Gov. Pat Quinn has no choice but to veto this shameful legislation, though it cleared both houses in the General Assembly with veto-proof margins.

 

It starts to get melodramatic from there. :lol:

 

Well, they did not really choose to do it, some guys in robes kind of forced their hand. I did not read the whole thing, but it seems like they may have actually done the right thing. Doing nothing and letting every municipality set up it's own rules would have created a much bigger mess for them.

 

 

Passing the law will not be the end of local governments trying their own gun control measures, even if illegal under state law. Here in FL, we finally attached personal penalties to politicians who pass such illegal laws in an effort to stop them.

 

The new law allows permitted concealed carry and bans future EBR bans. Despite the claim in the opening paragraph above, the changes do nothing that will "make it easier to let guns get into the hands of criminals." To the extent they changed anything, imposing reporting requirements on lost or stolen guns and requiring the FOID validation for private sales would make it a bit harder. What the editorial is complaining about is what was left out:

 

 

 

The only positive note on guns Friday was the passage of a separate bill pushed by state Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) that would require the reporting of lost or stolen guns and that FOID cards be validated during private sales. That would make it harder for gun traffickers to operate with impunity.

But as significant as what passed is what didn’t: a bill requiring universal background checks, the most effective way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy,

 

You do realize that you are talking to yourself here? I'd be kind of embarrassed if I started a thread and after four pages I accounted for 90% of the posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy,

 

You do realize that you are talking to yourself here? I'd be kind of embarrassed if I started a thread and after four pages I accounted for 90% of the posts

 

That's ok gaytor - at least you can be confident that you account for 90% of the spunk on your bedsheets. The other 10% is troubling......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tommy,

 

You do realize that you are talking to yourself here? I'd be kind of embarrassed if I started a thread and after four pages I accounted for 90% of the posts

 

That's ok gaytor - at least you can be confident that you account for 90% of the spunk on your bedsheets. The other 10% is troubling......

your vagina stinks. You should avail yourself of a douche....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy,

 

You do realize that you are talking to yourself here? I'd be kind of embarrassed if I started a thread and after four pages I accounted for 90% of the posts

 

 

Who said that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been almost three years since the Supreme Court decided in McDonald v Chicago that the second amendment applies to state and local governments. The 180 days that the 7th Circuit gave them to apply the second amendment outside the home have nearly expired, but the Governor needs 30 more days to decide whether to sign the bill that was just passed by veto-proof majorities.

 

More foot-dragging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Illinois law that is currently on hold raises a new question.

 

Illinois Concealed Carry Law Is A Joke

 

 

Perhaps the politicians should have listed the places and conditions that Illinois residents are permitted to carry instead of where they are forbidden, since that list would be far shorter.

 

Illinois’ misguided concealed carry law prohibits carrying a firearm in the following areas:

  • School and university properties — both public and private
  • Court houses
  • Libraries
  • Airports
  • Gaming facilities
  • Stadiums, arenas and sporting events
  • Amusement parks
  • Museums and zoos
  • Local government buildings:
    • Correctional facilities
    • Hospitals, mental health facilities and nursing homes – both public and private
  • Public transportation
  • Any establishment that serves alcohol and makes more than half of its revenue from the consumption of alcohol
  • Any public gathering or special event that requires a government permit
  • Any building where a special event liquor license has been issued (only during the event hours)
  • Public playgrounds and parks, athletic areas or facilities under the control of a municipality or park district – an exception was made for bike paths that are only partially in such a location
  • Property controlled by Cook County Forest Preserve
  • Any area forbidden by private property owners

 

Public transportation? The 7th Circuit said that the second amendment applies outside the home, but for those who rely on public transportation, there is this inconvenient Catch-22.

 

Constitutionally protected rights only for those rich enough to have private transportation? Seems pretty regressive and troubling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kicking and screaming continues. Gov Quinn Issues Amendatory Veto

 

The Illinois concealed carry bill passed with a large enough majority that the coming override vote is almost certain to succeed. It's just a way to drag out the process and bolster Quinn's anti-gun credentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another indication that the second amendment applies outside the home.

 

Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot

 

A federal judge has ruled that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates the Second Amendment in a case brought by an Avon man and a national gun rights group.

 

But Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said the Postal Service has a right to bar Tab Bonidy, who filed the lawsuit, from carrying his gun into the Post Office building itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Err... soon, mon. That's island-time soon.

 

9 months.

 

Some residents see no reason for more months of delay and are suing

 

Downstate gun owner Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed paperwork, seeking authority to begin carrying weapons now rather than the 270-day implementation period they say the state intends to follow.

 

“The state’s proposed denial of Second Amendment rights for another 270 days is an unacceptable perpetuation of the state’s … infringement of Ms. Shepard’s and Illinois State Rifle Association members’ Second Amendment rights,” they said in a court filing Wednesday.

 

The plaintiffs went on to argue that “no threat to public safety” would occur if those possessing valid FOID cards were permitted immediately to carry their weapons under terms of the concealed-carry law because those applicants already have been screened.

 

“Furthermore, plaintiffs are not asking for an unfettered right to carry firearms in public; rather, they are requesting an injunction that would allow them to carry firearms in a manner consistent with the limits imposed by … the Firearms Concealed Carry Act,” the gun-rights advocates stated in their filing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cook County passes more gun control

 

Meanwhile, those under 21 won't be allowed to buy guns in Cook County under a new plan also approved by the board Wednesday.

 

By state law, people 18 and older can buy long guns like shotguns and people 21 years and older can buy handguns. The new Cook County ordinance would restrict the sale of all guns for people under 21.

 

But some commissioners expressed concern that someone old enough to go to war wouldn't be old enough to buy a gun when returning home.

 

"You can go to war at 18, but you can't buy a gun at 18," said Commissioner Peter Silvestri, an Elmwood Park Republican.

 

It was approved by an 11-3 vote despite additional legal concerns from Fritchey that limiting how people can store their guns at home could invite legal challenges.

 

The plan would require gun owners with minors in their home to store their gun in a locked container and store the ammo elsewhere.

 

The message to 18, 19, and 20 year old voters: Nanny doesn't trust you yet.

 

As for the "safe" storage requirement, I remain hopeful that gun controllers will read and understand the state of the law in America:

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

Explaining to the courts (not to mention the voters) that self defense does not include any minors who might be in your home is going to be tricky. Lots of people think they have a right to defend themselves and their families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should avail yourself of a douche....

 

Are you available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 Illinois counties are not waiting around for state concealed weapons permits

 

On Thursday night, state police officials say troopers will still arrest anyone carrying a gun because no conceal carry applications have been processed and no permits have been issued under the new law.

But some county authorities in Illinois are ignoring that.

"I've already made clear to the state police that those prosecutions will go nowhere. Those folks will not be prosecuted as long as they're following the guidelines that I laid out," said Thomas Gibbons, Madison County State's Attorney.

Madison is one of 14 downstate counties where prosecutors or sheriff's officials have said that gun owners with state firearm owner's cards will not be arrested for carrying in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7th Circuit denies above-mentioned appeal

 

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request last Thursday and said it expects both sides to submit written briefs by Aug. 14 regarding whether the months-long wait to implementing the law is unreasonable and illegal, as critics insist. No oral arguments on the matter had been scheduled as of Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, they banned guns in restaurants and bars and abolished the city gun registry.

 

 

Current and retired police officers, and owners of businesses that serve booze would be exempted from the ban. Liquor stores and other businesses that sell packaged liquor, but do not serve it, also would be exempt.

 

Aldermen also approved a measure eliminating a 45-year-old requirement that Chicago gun owners register their firearms. It also would weaken a requirement that guns at home be secured with child-safety locks – by requiring such locks only when someone younger than 18 is in the home, unless the owner is carrying the firearm.

 

Another ordinance approved Wednesday would increase the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm within 100 feet of public buses or trains, bus shelters, train stations, or other public transportation facilities.

 

I doubt the restaurant ban will be any more effective than any previous Chicago gun ban.

 

The abolition of the registry is big news to me. I did not know they were even considering it. There is no reason to believe the courts would eventually force them to do that, since the Supreme Court let Washington DC keep their registry. Maybe they figured out that people who register their guns do not cause enough trouble to bother.

 

The Supreme Court has said that requiring guns to be locked up offends the core lawful purpose of the second amendment. They did not say it would be OK if it's to protect the children. The weakened requirement still guarantees more court challenges.

 

The last one gets back to the topic case of this thread directly: the idea now is that people who do not own cars do have second amendment rights outside the home, but must walk or bike everywhere and stay 100 feet from any form of public transportation. Does any of you believe that this is a reasonable infringement on a protected right? Seems pretty darn regressive and troubling to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edward Hambrick freed from jail after gun law ruled unconstitutional

State's Attorney Anita Alvarez dropped gun possession charges against 103 defendants Tuesday. The Illinois Supreme Court last week ruled the gun possession charges they all faced were based on a law that is unconstitutional.

 

"Everything is pretty much destroyed," Hambrick said of being locked up. "But that's -- I can rebuild the financial stuff and make arrangements to make payments on my debt. But one thing I can't recover is the time I spent in jail."

 

The unanimous State Supreme Court ruling that freed Hambrick essentially agreed with a Second Amendment argument he'd been making since July 2, 2011, the night Chicago Police pulled him over near 79th and Ashland because he was allegedly not using a seatbelt. Hambrick told them he had a firearm. When they took his chrome .45 caliber Taurus handgun, he admits becoming belligerent and lecturing the cops on his rights as an American citizen. Later, when he tried to file criminal charges against the arresting officers and the Circuit Court Judge hearing his case, the judge revoked Hambrick's bond and ordered a psychiatric evaluation. He was found to be sane, but as his case bounced through three courtrooms, no new bond was ever set. Hambrick's mug shot from 26 months ago indicates he lost a lot of weight while in Jail, refusing even to consider pleading guilty to any charge, despite pressure from some in his family.

 

"At times, they didn't understand why I didn't just give in and cop out just to get my freedom," Hambrick recalls. "I'd like to show them some appreciation for standing by me after all this time."

 

Hambrick said he may yet go back to court, as a plaintiff. He objects to the fee the State of Illinois plans to charge for a concealed carry permit and may sue to reduce or eliminate it.

 

Mr. Hambrick may be a bit of a nut for lecturing the cops and trying to file charges against the judge in his case (which, since he wasn't crazy, was darn funny), but I'd like to shake his hand.

 

He could have gotten out of jail and reduced the debt he faces, but his rights, meaning all of our rights, were more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois proposed bill to make possessing a gun without the required 2nd amendment permission slips a felony with a 3-10 minimum mandatory sentence.

 

You do have a special need for that permission slip, right? As in a few other states, you must show a need to exercise your rights in Illinois.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cook County Sheriff Objects to Concealed Carry Permits

 


...“This is not something I'm going to blindly go along with, saying, ‘All right, they've done it again to us in Springfield, another law that doesn't make any sense and we're just going to stand back and do it,'” Dart told reporters at the sheriff's police headquarters in Maywood.

 

“How many more incidents do we need to see where people shouldn't have guns?”

 

The law tasks Illinois State Police with overseeing the permit process but gives county sheriffs, state's attorneys, local police and the attorney general's office the power to object to a permit being issued. When objections are made, a review board will decide if the permits will be issued.

 

...

 

While Dart wants to bar permits to Cook County residents with a single arrest for domestic violence, gun possession or gang crimes, Illinois law has a less stringent standard. State police are required to file an objection if an applicant has five or more arrests in the last seven years or three or more arrests on gang-related charges.

 

...

 

He said the process for running a background check on applicants is flawed, with law enforcement agencies — including state police — banned from searching a more comprehensive national database called LEADS.

 


He's afraid permits will be issued to people who shouldn't have them. I doubt many such people really want to go through the application process, but if they do, he's the Sheriff and can object.

 

He plans to set a different standard than the one in state law on arrests. Arrests are not convictions and I question the wisdom of using them to deprive citizens of rights, but a person who manages to get arrested more than 5 times in 7 years does seem like he has a bit of trouble following rules. The thing is, police can almost always find a reason to arrest a person and this policy leaves open the possibility that police may repeatedly arrest individuals just to keep them from being eligible for permits.

 

The comment about LEADS confuses me. I had never heard of any such national database, so I looked it up. It's a state database.

 

Here's what it says about access:

 

Record confidentiality and system security are priority concerns for LEADS. While safeguards are in place, there are reported violations, which are addressed through audits, sanctions, and training. Another problem is the availability of LEADS. Not all criminal justice agencies have direct access. This is often an issue of money. While the LEADS software is free, there are significant additional costs associated with the installation and maintenance of the needed hardware and frame relay connection.

 

He's "banned" from searching it because of "significant additional costs." Waaaaah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will soon be legal to have a gun in places other than your home in Chicago.

 

After a hard-fought battle, Illinois residents next month can begin applying for permits to carry concealed guns in public. But those who do could face another challenge: figuring out where it's legal to carry a firearm and where having a gun could land them in jail.

While the Illinois statute lays out nearly two dozen places where guns are prohibited — including schools, public parks, government offices and hospitals — it also includes caveats that might seem confusing, even contradictory, particularly to novice gun carriers.

For example, the law prohibits guns at events where there is a large gathering of people, like neighborhood street festivals. But it allows people with guns to walk through a public gathering on the way home, to work or to their car.

That means, according to some firearms instructors, that people could legally walk through the crowd at the South Side Irish Parade with a gun tucked in their belt but they couldn't hang around and watch the performances.

And although the law forbids guns in public parks, nothing in the statute prohibits someone from carrying a gun on a trail or bike path that goes through a park.

In other words, firearms instructors said, it's OK to arm yourself while riding a bike through the Cook County Forest Preserves, but you'd better not get off your bike to use the bathroom.

 

I guess with some practice, a person could learn to lean to one side and pee while riding. Damn nanny state probably has some silly rule against that too! ;)

 

Maybe one of those split seats and a Wag Bag hung underneath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal judge strikes down Chicago ban on gun stores

 

...“But on the other side of this case is another feature of government.: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,” he wrote. “This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm.”

 

It's amazing that Chicago even tried this argument, not surprising that they lost.

 

For those who can't figure out why, try this on for size:

 

"Sure, you can have a printing press, if you can prove a extraordinary need for one, but you can't buy it here!" See the first amendment problem? The second amendment problem here is similar in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction to the above: Chicago did not just ban gun stores, it banned all gun transfers. The judge thought that went too far. More here.

 

The city 'has not demonstrated that allowing gun sales and transfers within city limits creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that flatly prohibiting them is justified,' read the 35-page decision of Judge Edmond E. Chang in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

...

Chicago's gun ban, intended to improve public safety, included a zoning ordinance that prohibited licensed gun dealers, banned individuals from selling guns, and barred Chicagoans from giving firearms to family members.

 

Judge Chang is an Obama appointee, for those keeping team scores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this make sense?

 

You have a right to keep and bear arms, but you can't buy one from a dealer, nor from a private individual, nor can you get one from a family member.

 

Chicago says yes, the judge says no.

 

I'm curious about whether any of our local gun control proponents think Chicago went too far. Silence implies assent, so I guess I have my answer. I still find it hard to believe that Chicago went to court with that argument, not to mention hard to believe many here are apparently willing to accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction to the above: Chicago did not just ban gun stores, it banned all gun transfers. The judge thought that went too far. More here.

 

The city 'has not demonstrated that allowing gun sales and transfers within city limits creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that flatly prohibiting them is justified,' read the 35-page decision of Judge Edmond E. Chang in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

...

Chicago's gun ban, intended to improve public safety, included a zoning ordinance that prohibited licensed gun dealers, banned individuals from selling guns, and barred Chicagoans from giving firearms to family members.

 

Judge Chang is an Obama appointee, for those keeping team scores.

Are you sure? As I thought they were dropped down directly from heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Correction to the above: Chicago did not just ban gun stores, it banned all gun transfers. The judge thought that went too far. More here.

 

The city 'has not demonstrated that allowing gun sales and transfers within city limits creates such genuine and serious risks to public safety that flatly prohibiting them is justified,' read the 35-page decision of Judge Edmond E. Chang in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

...

Chicago's gun ban, intended to improve public safety, included a zoning ordinance that prohibited licensed gun dealers, banned individuals from selling guns, and barred Chicagoans from giving firearms to family members.

 

Judge Chang is an Obama appointee, for those keeping team scores.

Are you sure? As I thought they were dropped down directly from heaven.

 

Didn't know you were a judge and still can't figure out why you all think that! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAF has asked the Supreme Court to hear a case from New Joisey that combines the central issue of this thread with the central issue from another second amendment thread.

 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The Second Amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). But in accordance with “the overriding philosophy of [New Jersey’s] Legislature. . . to limit the use of guns as much as possible,” State v. Valentine, 124 N.J. Super. 425, 427, 307 A.2d 617, 619 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973), New Jersey law bars all but a small handful of individuals showing “justifiable need” from carrying a handgun for self-defense, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4©.


The federal appellate courts, and state courts of last resort, are split on the question of whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. The Second, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Circuits, and the supreme courts of Illinois, Idaho, Oregon and Georgia have held or assumed that the Second Amendment encompasses the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. But along with the highest courts of Massachusetts, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, which have refused to recognize this right, a divided Third Circuit panel below held that carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. It thus upheld New Jersey’s “justifiable need” prerequisite for carrying defensive handguns.


The federal appellate courts are also split 8-1 on the question of whether the government must provide evidence to meet its burden in Second Amendment cases. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits require the government to produce legislative findings or other evidence to sustain a law burdening the right to bear arms. But the majority below held that the legislature’s policy decisions need not be supported by any findings or evidence to survive a Second Amendment challenge, if the law strikes the court as reasonable. Accordingly, the majority upheld New Jersey’s “justifiable need” law despite the state’s concession that it lacked legislative findings or evidence of the law’s public safety benefits, let alone the degree of fit between the regulation and the interests it allegedly secures.


The questions presented are:


1. Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.


2. Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.

 

In the press release, Alan Gottlieb said this:

 

“The right to self-defense is sacrosanct,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “yet has been disparaged and denied to all but an elite few in states like New Jersey. Individuals and families should not be deprived of the right to defend themselves and we intend to change that.”

 

That's not helpful. Sacrosanct? WTF is that supposed to mean? What is it supposed to mean to proponents of gun control, specifically? If I were one of their elk, what I would hear is: no gun control of any kind is acceptable.

 

It's also not needed. Look at the questions presented. Upthread, even fans of gun control have said that they believe the second amendment applies outside the home. Other than Ed, I have not seen a lot of people defending need-based second amendment rights over in the thread linked above. The gun nutz are not asking for anything nutty here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Goes Along With Chicago's Foot-Dragging

 

A federal judge Tuesday granted the city the six months Mayor Rahm Emanuel said it needs to figure out where to allow gun shops in Chicago.

U.S. District Court Judge Edmond Chang said his decision balances the needs of the city to craft regulations with the public’s Second Amendment rights.

Pete Patterson, an attorney for gun rights advocates, told Chang the six-month time frame is too long. Patterson said the city acted far more quickly to a court ruling that overturned the statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois.

But Andrew Worseck, a city Law Department attorney, said that in that case, the legal fight was far more prolonged — giving city officials more time to draft regulations.

After Tuesday’s brief hearing, Worseck told reporters he’s confident six months will be sufficient for the city to come up with rules regulating the sale of guns within Chicago.

“We will do everything we can to have a new package in place within 180 days,” Worseck said.

 

The Chicago Tribune wants to make it all about gun stores, but as noted above, Chicago residents can not buy a handgun in a private sale nor can they acquire one as a gift.

 

It might take a while to figure out where to put a gun store, but it should not take six months to allow Chicago residents to legally acquire handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latin Kings Gang Leader Wants Right To Vote

 

Or some constitutionally protected right or other. Sometimes I get them confused.

 

There are those who say that he should be denied his constitutionally protected rights because police have made an anonymous allegation against him, whoever he may be. They think he's not fit to vote because of his arrest record.

 

I certainly don't want gang leaders choosing our elected representatives, but am willing to wait for an actual conviction before depriving them of that right. An arrest is not the same as a conviction. I feel that way about other protected rights too, but some only think a conviction is needed sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vetting of concealed carry applicants too weak to trust

 

At least, that's the view of the Chicago Sun Times. Having seen this same complaint repeated in one place after another, followed by silence when the doom they predict fails to materialize, I'm not that worried.

 

I do find their attitude disturbing, though.

 

The second problem is that even Dart can’t do a truly thorough job because he is prohibited from checking a police database called the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System, the nation’s most comprehensive listing of arrest records. According to the State Police, that’s because LEADS is to be used only for criminal justice purposes, and the FBI considers concealed carry permits to be an administrative matter.

No wonder Dart calls the concealed carry law “horrifically unworkable.”

As drawn up by lawmakers under pressure from a federal appeals court, the concealed carry law allows people with a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card to apply for a license to carry loaded concealed guns. The applications go to the State Police, who check about a dozen databases to screen out applicants who are felons, or who in the past seven years have had five or more arrests or at least three arrests for gang-related offenses. Also nixed are people with at least two DUI convictions or a conviction for a violent crime.

But anyone with fewer than seven arrests gets the green light, which is less than reassuring. Someone with four arrests — two of them gang-related — is not necessarily a person you want packing heat on the streets.

That’s where the objections by local law enforcement agencies are supposed to come in. They are allowed to file an objection before the state’s new seven-member Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board if they think someone shouldn’t be toting a gun. But cop shops are given only 30 days after an application is filed to do so.

Making an objection is not easy. Dart has assigned some 25 officers to comb through jail records, orders of protection and Chicago’s database of arrests. Putting in more than 2,000 work hours, they’ve found applicants who’ve been picked up for domestic violence, gun crimes, gang crimes, sex crimes, battery and assault. Are these really the “law-abiding” people that defenders of the concealed carry law claim to be standing up for?

One applicant was arrested 29 times, including 10 times for felonies, but had only three convictions. The arrests were for murder, aggravated assaults on public safety workers, armed robbery, aggravated battery (twice), false personation of police, imitation of a public official and resisting arrest (three times).

A second applicant is affiliated with the Harrison Gents gang and had a machine-gun/automatic weapon arrest. A third had four arrests for domestic battery. A fourth, affiliated with the Vice Lords gang, had 13 arrests, two of them for battery and one for aggravated battery.

In the Illinois concealed carry law, the provisions for objections by local law enforcement need to be beefed up fast.

 

As mentioned above, the other reason he's not allowed to use the LEADS database is cost, but who cares when taxpayers are footing the bill?

 

As for those with extensive arrest records, I sure as heck don't want those people voting! They sound like horrible people and voting is a privilege for the well-behaved.

 

The police are challenging 300 out of over 9,000 applicants, and of course the Sun Times only wants to focus on the very worst of those. OK, let's focus on them. Is an arrest record sufficient reason to deny someone a protected right?

 

I think a conviction record certainly can be. An arrest record, no.

 

Any cop can always find some reason to arrest someone and the only review of this action is the cop himself. Putting that power to deny protected rights into the hands of a cop is a bad idea. That's one reason the law does not do it directly, but the back-door "may issue" approach accomplishes the same result indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons

 

 

Wow, Ninth Circuit voting FOR concealed carry!

 

I think Hell just froze over.

 

 

Well, keep your shirt on, it's the Ninth Circuit. They also ruled in 2003 that machine guns couldn't be regulated by the Feds under the Commerce Clause. Which was later blown out by the Supremes.

 

 

On November 13, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating Stewart's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922o, but affirmed his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Using the Morrison test, the Ninth Circuit ruled 18 U.S.C. § 922odid not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and was unconstitutional as applied. In its opinion the circuit court wrote:

  • "...a homemade machine gun may be part of a gun collection or may be crafted as a hobby. Or it may be used for illegal purposes. Whatever its intended use, without some evidence that it will be sold or transferred—and there is none here—its relationship to interstate commerce is greatly attenuated."
  • "...section 922(o) contains no jurisdictional element anchoring the prohibited activity to interstate commerce."
  • "...there is no evidence that section 922(o) was enacted to regulate commercial aspects of the machine gun business. More likely, section 922(o) was intended to keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals—an admirable goal, but not a commercial one."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons

 

 

Wow, Ninth Circuit voting FOR concealed carry!

 

I think Hell just froze over.

 

 

The Ninth Circuit has an interesting history on guns. In US v Stewart, they decided that a homegrown machine gun for personal use was not covered under the federal commerce power. They said something similar in Gonzalez vs Raich. The Supreme Court told them they were wrong in both cases, but I thought they were right.

 

From the article:

 

 

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution's Second Amendment by requiring residents to show "good cause" - and not merely the desire to protect themselves - to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

 

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone who claims a need for self-protection.

 

"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain in the majority opinion.

 

He disagreed with federal appeals courts that have upheld similar laws in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, while endorsing an appellate court that struck down Illinois' absolute ban on concealed weapons in public. The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue.

 

I agree, and if they don't take the cases they will be discussing in a week, this split in the circuits pretty much guarantees that the SCOTUS will have to address the questions of whether the second amendment applies outside the home and whether citizens must first show a special need to the satisfaction of local authorities before being granted second amendment rights. The current cases deal with those questions in the context of individuals between 18 and 21 years of age. If they don't wish to address that question, they will pass on the current cases and wait for the next ones. It won't be long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, about 50% of the Ninth Circuit's decisions are overturned by the SC. But I find it amazing that the Bleeding Heart Liberals would ever give it a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about the 9th CC decision on NPR yesterday. I about fell out of the car when I heard that the most liberal court in America struck down Kali's law that you must demonstrate "need" to get a CCW permit. Shocked was an understatement......

 

If it does go to the SCOTUS - I would be even more shocked if they overturn it. Especially given they have consistently sided with the notion that personal self-defense is a core principle of the 2nd Am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about the 9th CC decision on NPR yesterday. I about fell out of the car when I heard that the most liberal court in America struck down Kali's law that you must demonstrate "need" to get a CCW permit. Shocked was an understatement......

 

If it does go to the SCOTUS - I would be even more shocked if they overturn it. Especially given they have consistently sided with the notion that personal self-defense is a core principle of the 2nd Am.

 

The two big legal questions about the second amendment right now are whether it applies outside the home and whether a citizen must demonstrate a need to have second amendment rights. The second question assumes that the courts decide that it does apply outside the home, since that is the only place that second amendment rights are considered to be need-based.

 

I would be very surprised if they decide it does not apply outside the home and fairly surprised if they decide 2A rights are need-based, but neither is impossible.

 

It seems pretty obvious from the silence around here that the political question is a lot more clear. No one seems to want to step up and argue in favor of the Brady Bunch positions on these issues.

 

That means that if the courts do decide these issues in a way unfavorable to gun owners, there will be major political backlash. Like there was with Kelo vs New London, but probably a lot more intense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article says that the California decision is unlikely to be appealed

 

The reason is that the judgement was against counties, not the State, so the State has no reason nor standing to appeal the decision.

 

The counties do, but it appears unlikely politically.

 

Not that it would matter. There are other cases that are further along in the process, including the two the Supreme Court will be discussing next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple more on the Peruta vs San Diego decision.

 

Ninth Circuit’s Peruta ruling reveals faults with other circuit opinions

 

“We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits for several reasons,” Judge O’Scainnlain wrote. “First, contrary to the approach in Heller, all three courts declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home.”

 

All of those cases challenge the arbitrary nature of handgun permit denials, the issue at the heart of the Peruta case decided yesterday.

 

“And with these cases off the table,” the Peruta opinion added two pages later, “the remaining cases speak with one voice: states may not destroy the right to bear arms in public under the guise of regulating it.”

 

On Page 68, Judge O’Scannlain continued his critique, noting, “By evading an in-depth analysis of history and tradition, the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits missed a crucial piece of the Second Amendment analysis. They failed to comprehend that carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a central component of the right to bear arms.”

 

“And further,” he added, “they failed to comprehend that regulations on the right, although permissible to an extent, could not go so far as to enjoin completely a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s right to carry in public for self-defense. Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny.”

 

 

Court tosses California's concealed weapons rules

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group in Washington D.C., said it hopes the decision will be overturned. It filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case urging the court to keep the current permitting policy in place.

 

"Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so," center spokesman Jonathan Lowy said.

 

Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good-cause requirement limited the number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.

 

"It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun," Thomas wrote.

 

The majority opinion says:

 

To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, an inkling of common sense prevails. Even in the land of fruits and nuts..... Will wonders never cease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, about 50% of the Ninth Circuit's decisions are overturned by the SC. But I find it amazing that the Bleeding Heart Liberals would ever give it a look.

 

 

Elsewhere, someone joked that the Supremes might overturn this 9th CIrcuit ruling just out of habit. :lol:

 

It's good fun to mock the 9th, but the this article says that over time, all circuits average 75% reversal rate before SCOTUS

 

That's from 2011. This one from 2012 says the 9th was then number two, behind the 6th.

 

But more recently, another federal circuit has reigned as the most reversed. The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, has had a particularly dismal record before the high court. In the seven Supreme Court terms completed since the fall of 2005, the 6th Circuit has been reversed 31 out of 38 times, for an 81.6 percent reversal rate, based on figures compiled by two Philadelphia lawyers. That leads all the federal circuits for that time period, with the 9th Circuit coming in as the second most reversed—100 out of 128 cases, or 78.1 percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article says that the California decision is unlikely to be appealed

 

The reason is that the judgement was against counties, not the State, so the State has no reason nor standing to appeal the decision.

 

The counties do, but it appears unlikely politically.

 

Not that it would matter. There are other cases that are further along in the process, including the two the Supreme Court will be discussing next week.

 

 

The county sheriff will not seek an en banc review by the 9th Circuit.

 

The 9th could still decide to review the case if a judge asks by March 6th, and the county could still file with the Supreme Court.

 

I continue to believe that this case will not make it to the Supreme Court because the important questions surrounding the second amendment will be resolved by another case sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to bear arms does not stop at the front door


...The question of whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to the public is contentious. The 7th Circuit agrees with the 9th Circuit that carrying a gun outside the home is protected by the Constitution, but other courts (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Circuits) are unsettled on the issue.

 

This issue should be a no-brainer.

 

Few people, if any, would dare suggest that any of the other Bill of Rights be limited to the privacy of one’s home.

 

Does free speech end in the home? No. Do Fourth Amendment privacy rights end in the home? No. So why should the right to bear arms end in the home?

 

Rights outside the home are sometimes more limited, but they always exist. The right to privacy, for example, is reduced outside the home because of the lowered expectation of privacy. But the Fourth Amendment still applies outside the home.

 

First Amendment rights to free speech also exist outside the home, albeit in a more limited fashion. For example, the government has a right to impose content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, on expression in public....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago continues to be dragged along kicking and screaming.

 

Keeping Gun Stores Away From Chicago

 

OK, so I couldn't resist editing the title.


...Emanuel would prefer to allow no gun shops. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago's ban on handgun ownership, the city passed a law outlawing gun stores. But in January that ban also fell, at the hands of a federal judge who ruled that it violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

 

He gave Chicago six months to enact a new ordinance allowing gun stores. But he stressed that "nothing in this opinion prevents the city from considering other regulations ... on sales and transfers of firearms to minimize the access of criminals to firearms."

 

That's what the mayor's proposal aims to do. The city undertook a study, with the help of the respected University of Chicago Crime Lab, which found that Chicago police recover seven times more guns, per capita, than the New York police and more than twice as many as the Los Angeles police. Nearly 60 percent of the guns were brought in other states. Almost 20 percent came from four gun shops near Chicago — three in the suburbs and one in Gary.

 

What this evidence proves is that the practices of gun stores greatly affect whether firearms end up in the hands of people who are not supposed to own them. The ordinance is an effort to eliminate bad practices and thus curb the supply of illegal weapons.

 

Among its requirements: Stores would have to do fingerprinting and background checks on all employees, install an alarm system and surveillance cameras to prevent thefts, limit sales to one handgun per month to any one person, and videotape sales to deter buyers who use false identification. After gun stores in New York agreed to similar standards, there was a big reduction in the number of illegal guns traced to those stores.

 

I have noted before that the CDC came to a different conclusion about what the evidence proves.

 

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.

 

The surveillance camera requirement raises lots of questions. What kinds of cameras will satisfy the law? Where must they be pointed? Where and how must the recordings be maintained? For how long? How will the privacy of people appearing in those videos be protected?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the right extends outside the house, but all owners should be registered and be required to show id before exercising that right. Each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the right extends outside the house, but all owners should be registered and be required to show id before exercising that right. Each time.

 

Oh fuck off. You got your ass handed to you in the voter ID thread and now you're grasping at straws.

 

Lets get this straight.... that issue was the "getting" of the photo ID as being too burdensome on voters - not showing it when you actually vote. Once you have it, there is no more burden anymore. Unless carrying a small thin card in your manpurse is a burden. So showing it at the poll when you go to vote each time is not the issue. Its the getting off your ass to go get the FREE ID that seems to be the problem. Same with ID's needed to purchase a gun. I only need to get the ID once. Once i have it, no problemo.

 

So your lame analogy of having to show ID everytime I go outside of the house is... well..... totally lame. You're better than this Flitch. Can't you just gracefully accept that you were out-logic'd and that GETTING voter ID is no more or less burdensome than GETTING the photo ID required to buy a gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the right extends outside the house, but all owners should be registered and be required to show id before exercising that right. Each time.

 

Applying that logic to the Chicago law that was the subject of this thread, we'd have to put government agents at the doorways to porches, attached garages, and other public spaces.

 

Brady Bunch logic leads to some darn funny places. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago Votes To Allow Gun Stores

 

(In 0.5% of the city and subject to many restrictions.)


Under the gun to satisfy a federal judge, the City Council unanimously agreed Wednesday to allow gun shops, but keep them out of most neighborhoods and require them to videotape every sale to prevent straw purchases.

“If it was up to me as the person who helped establish the Brady bill, the five-day waiting period and the assault weapons ban, I wouldn’t take this step,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said after the 48-to-0 vote.

 

...

 

Emanuel had until July 14 to satisfy a court order to allow gun shops after U.S. District Court Judge Edmond Chang overturned the city’s ban.

The mayor responded with sweeping regulations he considers the toughest in the nation.

 

On Wednesday, the City Council reluctantly approved those rigid regulations.

 

Gun store owners would be required to videotape every sale to deter legal customers from buying firearms for crooks. They would be required to submit a safety plan outlining exterior lighting, surveillance cameras and alarm systems, as well as storage of guns and ammunition. Their employees would have to undergo fingerprinting, background checks and training on identifying potential gun traffickers.

 

The stores would have to maintain a log of gun sales to be used in the event that a firearm was later recovered in a crime. Special-use zoning would keep gun stores out of 99.5 percent of Chicago and at least 500 feet away from all schools and parks.

 

The mayor’s ordinance also would limit Chicago gun stores to selling one handgun a month to a buyer. If the city revoked a store’s business license for violating the ordinance, it could not reopen at the same location for three years.

 

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, has accused Emanuel of making the ordinance so restrictive, it will “make sure there are no gun shops” in Chicago.

 

“The license is $3,800. Your business transactions are videotaped. The costs are so high, nobody can possibly make a living doing that, so no one is going to do it,” Pearson said.

 

“It’s a right to buy a firearm. If you pass a background check, you shouldn’t have to be videotaped. People don’t want their business transactions videotaped…. It’s just a bunch of restrictions designed to make sure no gun shop opens in Chicago.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dont like shitcago, why not just avoid the place?

He doesn't like Hickenloper either, but just can't seem to quit him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dont like shitcago, why not just avoid the place?

 

I would have to leave America to avoid the precedents they set governing my rights.

 

I'd rather stay and force them to accept different precedents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost gun store fight costs Chicago taxpayers nearly $1 million


...the judge approved $940,000 in legal fees that the city must pay to the attorneys who challenged the ban.

...

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration chose not to fight the ruling that the gun-store ban was unconstitutional. The city didn’t want to run up even more legal bills, sources say.

But Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said he anticipates a legal challenge to the city’s new rules, which would keep gun stores out of 99.5 percent of the city.

“The ordinance is prohibitive,” he said.

Holden said the city has received one “general inquiry” about opening a new gun shop, but no formal applications. Pearson said he recently advised a man to “think carefully” about his plan to open a gun store in the city.

“If you look at the hidden costs of opening that store, I don’t know how a person could make a living selling firearms in the city of Chicago,” he said.

Pearson added that he thinks the city wasted its money fighting the gun-store lawsuit.

“I think it would be better to spend that on the educational system,” he said...

 

Or just not spend it at all, but that option seldom occurs to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan Gura Explains His Bill :lol:

Waiters, cabbies, and anyone else whose Illinois livelihood depends at least in part on gratuities, listen up: your attorney general is against tipping. Or at least, she doesn’t want me to tip you when I travel to Illinois on business. Or, at least on the business of stopping her from violating your constitutional rights.

 

Madigan is spending gobs of taxpayer money–the money withheld from your wages–fighting the idea that tipping is customary and ordinary. And it’s probably a losing battle, which will cost you more money.

 

...

 

Hoping to ensure that the Bill of Rights would attract the same quality of representation as Microsoft and General Motors attract with their dollars, Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1988, promising that prevailing plaintiffs who vindicate their rights may recover from the losing defendants—who, it must be remembered, violated the highest law of the land—their “reasonable attorney’s fee” and expenses.

 

...

 

To recover attorney fees and costs, one must litigate for them, and this does often become a second major litigation. The same government officials who were found culpable for violating the people’s fundamental rights are now suddenly concerned with protecting the poor taxpayers—oh heavens, those poor taxpayers, a/k/a “those same people whose rights we trampled”—from the greedy plaintiffs’ lawyers. And the defendants often use the government’s unlimited resources to keep fighting the bill from the original litigation.

 

Courts award “fees on fees” for extra fee litigation, but that’s not much of a deterrent against city hall. After all, it’s not their money, it’s yours. Had they wanted to save money, perhaps they wouldn’t have violated the law in the first place. And their goal is not to defend “the taxpayers,” please… it’s to deter and punish civil rights litigation.

 

...

 

In Moore v. Madigan, my colleagues and I convinced the Seventh Circuit to strike down Illinois’ total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns, as a violation of the Second Amendment. The legislature could regulate handguns if it wished, but the total ban was gone. The state opted for regulation, the bugs in which are still being worked out, but basically, here’s a fundamental right that people can now exercise, because of our work.

 

The market value of that landmark work — for three lawyers to develop this case, file and pursue it in the U.S. District Court, and successfully prosecute the Seventh Circuit appeal (including en banc and other post-judgment adventures), is $219,807 in attorney time and $3,193.29 in costs. It’s amply justified. (Our friends in the parallel NRA case, who staff these things very heavily, think the value is $606,298 and $12,308.30 — God bless ‘em!)

 

You think the state is mad?

 

Take a look at the deep dish of frivolity and obstinance that is the state’s opposition to our petition for attorney fees. And when everything is said and done, the state claims that the market value of litigating a case like Moore v. Madigan is $38,695 in attorney time and $1,853.38 out of pocket.

 

Really?

 

We disagree. How does the state get to these absurd figures? First, there is the stupid argument that we didn’t win the case. This alone should be grounds for sanctions, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. A chunk of my time is mysteriously challenged because there’s no proof I represented the plaintiffs (?). For unknown reasons, they claim Jensen was terminated during the appeal (false — he was never terminated). Our hourly rates, which are absolutely in line with the market for what we do, and consistent with what we’ve billed and been awarded by courts, are too high—because insurance defense (perhaps the absolute bottom, dollar-wise, of the litigation market) attorneys (who work for the state) in Springfield (not where folks go shopping for specialized constitutional litigation) bill less.

 

Then there’s the usual irrational nitpicking over billing entries—if two lawyers spend an hour on the phone, a bill for each lawyer’s time is “duplicative.” And for every little thing that we did, if we didn’t instantly win, then we allegedly didn’t prevail. That’s not how it works, of course. If the lawyers prevailed on the claim–and we did–the issue is whether billing for that task was reasonable under the circumstances. Under the state’s theory, David Sigale can’t even get reimbursed for parking at the District Court for the preliminary injunction hearing, because we lost the preliminary injunction in that court. Remind me how did the appeal of that loss turn out? And how else would the case have arrived at the Seventh Circuit?

 

Indeed… it’s the expense side of the ledger where the state really kicks into the other dimension. The state challenges David Sigale’s parking expenses for appearing at the appellate argument, and for meeting with me the night before, because gosh darn it, “the amount is high for Springfield, IL.” The Seventh Circuit is in Chicago. Should David have parked in Springfield and walked?

 

Likewise, with my hotel. Flying in from Washington, I booked myself for the night at the Hilton down the street from the court. At $239 per night for a standard room plus tax, that’s absolutely the market for an average business hotel in Chicago, and while comfortable, very far from any sort of luxurious experience. But the state wanted me to pay no more than $130 plus tax, or $160, because that’s the state’s maximum rate for its employees’ travel. Well, yeah—the state negotiates very nice rates for its employees. When I was a California Deputy Attorney General, I paid all sorts of ridiculous hotel rates for state travel. But I don’t work for the state of Illinois. Go search downtown Chicago, near the courthouse, for a $130 hotel! When I searched Expedia in responding to the state, only a hostel came in below $130 (at $150 plus tax there was one motel).

 

Do we get to eat when we travel? The state objected to my airport coffee. They think Sigale and I should have had dinner in downtown Chicago for $8 per person. Lunch at $4 per person. No, that doesn’t include the DeLorean ride to 1935. But I’m a profligate Waster Of The Taxpayers’ Precious Money because I tipped the cab driver on the ride downtown from the airport! And I should not have tipped the waiter either.

 

Yes, we are litigating over whether I should have given tips to the waitstaff and cab driver. Sigale gave me a ride back to the airport, and I didn’t tip him, so perhaps they have a point. How much will it cost The Taxpayers to fight over the cabbie’s $8.27 tip and the waiter’s $7.53 tip?

 

How much would it have cost the state to pick up the phone and negotiate with us? That’s right, no negotiations have taken place. The state’s lawyers said they’d negotiate, we gave them our information, and the next thing we know, they tell us to pound sand because we allegedly didn’t prevail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent violence in Chicago (which has seen violence decline since the McDonald case, contrary to predictions at the time) has prompted the Governor of Illinois to back a ban on "assault weapons, large standard capacity magazines, and .50 caliber rifles.

 

Not because any of those weapons are the types used in the gang violence plaguing Chicago. Just because there are some deaths and these are some types of politically unpopular guns they can ban in response. And they have to DO SOMETHING. As usual, there's no time for niceties like debate or, you know, listening to sheriffs or anything. It's an emergency! We must pass an unrelated gun ban before the hubbub from these headlines dies down, lest we have no excuse at all for banning guns instead of just a lame, unrelated excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent violence in Chicago (which has seen violence decline since the McDonald case, contrary to predictions at the time) has prompted the Governor of Illinois to back a ban on "assault weapons, large standard capacity magazines, and .50 caliber rifles.

 

Not because any of those weapons are the types used in the gang violence plaguing Chicago. Just because there are some deaths and these are some types of politically unpopular guns they can ban in response. And they have to DO SOMETHING. As usual, there's no time for niceties like debate or, you know, listening to sheriffs or anything. It's an emergency! We must pass an unrelated gun ban before the hubbub from these headlines dies down, lest we have no excuse at all for banning guns instead of just a lame, unrelated excuse.

 

Go McDonald go. As if the McDonald decision is going to save Chicago from its interstate-fed gun epidemic.

Um, New York City had a similar problem to Chicago thirty years ago, but they cleared it up, Tom. Without McDonald, too.

 

 

 

"Unrelated gun ban?" It's sad to see your fine mind in such a rut, Tom.

No fabrication or exaggeration is required when pointing to U.S. gun presence, or U.S. gun damage.

 

Assault weapons are not helping the US gun problem, or the Chicago gun problem. In fact, they make both worse.

AW's have been used in half our mass shootings, Tom.

High capacity magazines are of no positive benefit to this gun-torn city, obviously. They are WMD's in that situation, basically.

As for .50 cals, their availability (for $10,500 in the internet) is one reason our cities are now buying military vehicles. (Two .50 cals were the concrete reasons for tanks at the Branch Davidian compound thirty years ago.)

 

Generally, these items fit the pattern of gun escalation in the USA.

Chicago is a heinous example of retributive U.S. gun mentality taken to its logical conclusion. Quite disturbing. IMO your SAF arguments are stale in that setting, (and I once did social work among street gangs on those streets, '72-'74).

 

To help you understand this, Tom, you might visualize the idea that more of these battlefield weapons in Chicago will compound the issue. Conversely, using the same logic, fewer battlefield weapons will relieve the issue.

 

Not that you care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed the McDonald decision would solve Chicago's problems, just pointed out that the doomcasters were wrong as usual.

 

The weapons being banned are not the ones being used as an excuse for the ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that we have too many small guns. I think a lot of the crap would go away if a minimum calibre of .50 and 6 inch barrels were adopted as a minimum standard for handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, on 17 Jul 2014 - 12:26, said:

I never claimed the McDonald decision would solve Chicago's problems, just pointed out that the doomcasters were wrong as usual.

 

The weapons being banned are not the ones being used as an excuse for the ban.

Pish posh.

 

Everyone knows that a $10,000 weapon that weighs 30 pounds and is rarely (ever?) used in crimes is the problem in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed the McDonald decision would solve Chicago's problems, just pointed out that the doomcasters were wrong as usual.

 

The weapons being banned are not the ones being used as an excuse for the ban.

 

It's okay for propaganda, Tom. Just that it makes for a pin-headed argument. Third-grade stuff.

Not far from X law just failed to stop Y crime, therefore we have a green light on gunplay.

Or "Guns don't kill people."

 

Speaking of important, modern gun-rights cases and stupid gunslinger talking points...The similarly trite argument about "That law will not work, therefore should not be passed" was addressed in Heller II fallout:

 

The court brushed aside the gun lobby’s argument that the registration system was invalid because it would be circumvented by criminals. Stating that the argument made “little sense” and would “invalidate any and all gun laws,” the court emphasized that “[a]lthough the various registration requirements at issue will not prevent all criminals from obtaining firearms, it surely will prevent some from doing so. That is enough.”

 

The court’s decision reaffirms the notion that, after the Heller decision, legislatures still have great leeway in enacting thoughtful, rational gun laws in order to protect the public and law enforcement officers. This adds to the gun lobby’s ever-growing losing streak of expensive and wasteful Second Amendment challenges to common sense gun laws. Second Amendment challenges have been rejected in 96% of the more than 900 civil and criminal cases tracked by the Law Center across the country since the Heller decision in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed the McDonald decision would solve Chicago's problems, just pointed out that the doomcasters were wrong as usual.

 

The weapons being banned are not the ones being used as an excuse for the ban.

 

Perfect example of the inefficacy of trying to address behavior by controlling access to the implements by which that behavior is implemented.

 

Of course - getting ONE kind of a bad thing outlawed is the first step in setting the false expectation that outlawing MORE of those bad things is the answer when the first ban doesn't achieve the desired results.

 

Let's outlaw kids having kids - after all, most teen mothers don't *intend* to have babies before they've become adults themselves, right? Children of single teen parents are disproportionately disadvantaged, and if they make it to adulthood, become bigger consumers of social services, and have a much greater chance at ending up as wards of the penal system. So - if we outlawed teen pregnancy, the problem wouldn't go away, but, we'd make progress towards the goal, right? Who could argue against that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I never claimed the McDonald decision would solve Chicago's problems, just pointed out that the doomcasters were wrong as usual.

 

The weapons being banned are not the ones being used as an excuse for the ban.

 

Perfect example of the inefficacy of trying to address behavior by controlling access to the implements by which that behavior is implemented.

 

Of course - getting ONE kind of a bad thing outlawed is the first step in setting the false expectation that outlawing MORE of those bad things is the answer when the first ban doesn't achieve the desired results.

 

Let's outlaw kids having kids - after all, most teen mothers don't *intend* to have babies before they've become adults themselves, right? Children of single teen parents are disproportionately disadvantaged, and if they make it to adulthood, become bigger consumers of social services, and have a much greater chance at ending up as wards of the penal system. So - if we outlawed teen pregnancy, the problem wouldn't go away, but, we'd make progress towards the goal, right? Who could argue against that?

 

Cracking down on guns in NYC worked. Availability was addressed, in many ways.

Then there's the bit about how studies repeatedly show that states with tighter gun laws are doing better with gun violence.

Plus other suicide studies which show that gun availability is contributing to 16,000 gun suicides per year.

Guy, the supply side needs to be addressed in this formula. It's always part of the problem.

 

Besides, I suspect that such talk is weak rhetoric: the logic which would allow a .50 cal based on a good record would banish the AW because of 26 different mass murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know you are a "stop and frisk" fan, Joe. Disappointing.

 

I'm not, and have stated my opposition to stop-and-frisk clearly, unequivocally, and recently.

So... please provide content instead of more dishonest propaganda mis-quoting me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't know you are a "stop and frisk" fan, Joe. Disappointing.

 

I'm not, and have stated my opposition to stop-and-frisk clearly, unequivocally, and recently.

So... please provide content instead of more dishonest propaganda mis-quoting me.

 

That's how they've been cracking down on guns in NYC. The gun controllers up there say it's the only way to confiscate all the guns.

 

They are probably right about that. We're almost able to keep weapons out of our prisons using such tactics. If we all want to live like prisoners, we can have gun control that works! Yippee!

 

BTW, I'm opposed to carnage. Clearly and unequivocally opposed. Right now and always. Are we good now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago's gun problem is actually a criminal problem. Much like all gun problems.


Over the July 4 weekend, in Chicago alone, 16 people were shot to death and another 66 were wounded. At a press briefing on July 11, the White House weighed in, stating that Obama would "continue to make the case" that lawmakers should adopt new gun control laws. Two days later, on Sunday, Gov. Pat Quinn also called for more gun control, in particular a state ban on assault weapons, as the solution.

 

But Chicago's problems lie with the city’s politicians. Nationally, police solve almost two out of every three murders – 63 percent of them. That figure is much lower in Chicago. In 2010, right before Rahm Emanuel became mayor, the rate for Chicago was 39 percent. But by Emanuel’s second year in office, it had plunged to an official rate of 26 percent. (In reality it is even lower, because Chicago has tried to hide how bad things are by increasingly misclassifying murders as non-murders.)

 

After becoming mayor, Emanuel did three unfortunate things to the Chicago police force:

 

1) He closed down detective bureaus in Chicago's highest crime districts and moved them elsewhere, sometimes quite far away.

 

2) Instead of increasing the number of police officers by 1,000, as he had promised during his campaign, he actually cut the number of police.

 

3) He disbanded many gang task forces.

 

Not surprisingly, when you don’t catch criminals, the result is more crime...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Didn't know you are a "stop and frisk" fan, Joe. Disappointing.

 

I'm not, and have stated my opposition to stop-and-frisk clearly, unequivocally, and recently.

So... please provide content instead of more dishonest propaganda mis-quoting me.

 

That's how they've been cracking down on guns in NYC. The gun controllers up there say it's the only way to confiscate all the guns.

 

They are probably right about that. We're almost able to keep weapons out of our prisons using such tactics. If we all want to live like prisoners, we can have gun control that works! Yippee!

 

BTW, I'm opposed to carnage. Clearly and unequivocally opposed. Right now and always. Are we good now?

 

You PROMOTE carnage, IMHO, by denying guns' overall danger, and the moral deterioration associated with them, within our society. Off the top of my head:

You want Heller expanded into public spaces (the very subject of this thread).

You want weak CCP qualifications to rule through all 50 states.

You promote guns for self-defense, but the actual numbers show that inside and outside the home they bring carnage, not safety.

You think guns are an effective deterrent to rape, but public health officials universally disagree with you.

You are a silver-tongued apologist for guns, 24-7, using dishonesty, half-truths, and cherry picked anomalies.

You harbor conspiracy theory wrt to the guns in Mexico, and wrt the BATF, specifically.

You speak against background checks for 40% of the U.S. gun market: private sales. WOW.

You quote racist, mis-guided websites.

 

 

BTW, I'm opposed to carnage. Clearly and unequivocally opposed. Right now and always. Are we good now?

 

Far from it. Your dismissal of Everytown's account of 77 school shootings since Sandy Hook says otherwise.

 

Let's take a look some gun uses outside the home, Tom Ray, which you exonerated in another forum.

This source is a gun blogger, who is missing the point, as you are IMO.

This stuff points to a mis-guided gun mentality passed on to the next generation, IMO.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/10/wow-journalist-attempts-to-debunk-anti-gun-groups-list-of-school-shootings-in-america-since-sandy-hook-heres-what-he-found/

Another fake shooting listed by Everytown gun map was drug related, not on campus. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22648057/suspect-arrested-in-fatal-shooting-near-morehouse-college … #RHShooting

Another fake shooting listed by everytown. A gunman ran onto campus, was chased by police, shot student accidentally. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2013/feb/07/shooting-reported-indian-river-state-college/ …

Another fake school shooting listed by everytown. 19-year-old shot in elementary parking lot over dice game at 9 PM. http://abc7news.com/archive/8992648/ …

Another fake school shooting listed by everytown. Gang-involved student accidentally shot herself in thigh. http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/student-wounded-at-grady-high/nWbhG/ …

Another fake school shooting by everytown. UCF college student committed suicide in public. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-05-31/features/os-ucf-shooting-incident-investigation-new-20130531_1_james-oliver-seevakumaran-ucf-police-department-former-ucf-student …

Another fake school shooting listed by Everytown. Teen committed suicide. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/21755974/davidson-middle-school-closes-following-8th-grade-students-suicide …

Another fake school shooting listed by #everytown. Student shoots friend over money they owe for illegal gambling. http://www.abc3340.com/story/22003093/fight-over-money-leads-to-shooting-at-stillman-college …

Another fake school shooting listed by everytown. Honors student shoots self in front of class. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/29/student-suicide-attempt-cincinnati/2122575/ …

Another fake school shooting listed by Everytown. Northwest High School principal shot by her ex-husband on campus. http://www.newschannel5.com/story/6834915/schools-react-to-asst-principals-shooting-death …

Another fake school shooting by Everytown. Student killed because of gang activity. http://wreg.com/2013/08/26/three-men-arrested-in-deadly-north-panola-high-shooting/ …

Another fake school shooting by Everytown. Gang-related, student fist fight becomes gun fight. http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail-pf.php?n=215489 …

Another fake school shooting by Everytown. Crazy man shoots himself at high school, never went to school. http://bangordailynews.com/2013/09/30/news/lewiston-auburn/police-release-name-of-teen-who-allegedly-shot-himself-during-homecoming-festivities-in-gray/ …

Nearly halfway there... Another fake Everytown school shooting. Student kills self in class. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/student-commits-suicide-texas_n_4101906.html …Another fake school shooting by Everytown. Ex-high school student kills self in parking lot. http://globegazette.com/news/local/algona-school-grounds-death-apparently-self-inflicted/article_edc0a2d6-3aed-55e1-b0a9-0f595d07a64f.html …

Another fake school shooting by Everytown. Gang-related drive by is now a mass shooting? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/03/shooting-north-carolina-university/3399821/ …

Another fake shooting by Everytown. Gang-related crossfire hits bystander. http://stonemountain.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/stephenson-high-student-shot-at-school …

Another fake school shooting listed by Everytown. Professor kills self on campus. http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/mines-professor-apparently-commits-suicide-on-campus/article_b75ce434-91b1-58df-b204-5bbe02cbd384.html …

Another fake school shooting by Everytown. Gang banger shoots another student in face. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/student-shot-in-face-at-Florida-school/23288292 …

Fake school shooting listed by Everytown was gang initiation in Fresno. http://abc30.com/archive/9370006/ … #RHShooting

Another fake school shooting listed by Everytown. MLK elementary school shooting was drive by. http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna-valley/lancaster/school-locks-down-as-precaution-after-shots-fired-nearby/23945078 … #RHshooting

Fake school shooting listed by Everytown & promoted by media was gang related in Killadelphia charter school. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Shots-Fired-at-North-Philadelphia-High-School-240881521.html …

School shooting listed by Everytown map was gang-related dispute at Widener University. http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-southeasternpa/Local/classes-to-resume-at-widener-university-after-shooting/24028662 …

Everytown calls Cesar Chavez High School a "school shooting"; police call it a gang turf war. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/04/03/phoenix-police-make-arrests-chavez-high-school-shooting-abrk/7264833/ …

"School shooting" listed by Everytown in South Caroline State University was argument that got out of hand & was off campus.

Wow. "School shooting" listed by Everytown at Eastern Florida State College was actually self-defense. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/30/florida-state-college-shooting/5059041/ …

"School shooting" listed by Everytown at North High School, IA in Des Moines was gang-related, in parking lot. http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iowa/police-investigate-shooting-outside-north-high-school/24243510#!XeWTd …

Salisbury High School, NC "school shooting" listed by Everytown was gang-related, accidentally. http://www.salisburypost.com/article/20140210/SP01/140219963/ …

"School shooting" at Brush High School, OR listed by Everytown was after hours, off campus, over a girl. Ban girls? http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/02/police_two_boys_charged_in_bru.html …

Union University "school shooting" listed by Everytown gun map was guy shooting his fiancee in parking lot. Staged it to look like suicide.

"School shooting" at Raytown Success Academy, MO was in parking lot, not school related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, I suspect that such talk is weak rhetoric: the logic which would allow a .50 cal based on a good record would banish the AW because of 26 different mass murders.

Why would you banish AW because of 26 mass murders when handguns are responsible for something like 100x that number??? Why would you not push to banish handguns before AWs based on e sheer numbers that handguns are used in crimes and murders??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois issues new rules to stem tide of lawsuits

 

Due process in Illinois works like this:


...Not just anyone can carry a gun right off the bat. You have to get a license, which entails passing muster with local law enforcement and the Illinois State Police; they can deny applicants.

 

Then there's the Concealed Carry License Review Board, which reviews those objections. It's a process that's led to scores of lawsuits against the board -- applicants who say they were unfairly denied a license, given no reason for why they were denied, even cases of mistaken identity.

 

In a memo, the State Police Director Hiram Grau cites these lawsuits as a reason for the emergency rules. "It is anticipated," he writes "that the volume of litigation will continue until the statutory framework is bolstered by a regulatory process."...

 

So they're going to start telling people why their permits were denied instead of keeping it secret and waiting for the inevitable lawsuits.

 

Obviously, keeping the reason(s) for denial secret from citizens who have had their permits denied is a much safer and more sound public policy because... well.... because if they know why, they might somehow correct the problem and get a permit! If they don't know the problem, they can't correct it and can't get a permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Isn't s that how the no fly list works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But Isn't s that how the no fly list works?

No fly lists work?

Not since being declared unconstitutional for the same reasons Chicago's secret denials would be, had they not corrected the situation.

 

Of course, they never seem to get these corrections quite right, so gun nutz will remain watchful.

 

The same issue exists anywhere "may issue" carry license rules apply. You can be denied for any reason and the reason need not be revealed. It may be obvious what the reason is and the reason may be obviously wrong, as it was when Martin Luther King had his carry permit denied, but Jocal and the Bloomberg Bunch will tell you that's just due process in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't know you are a "stop and frisk" fan, Joe. Disappointing.

 

I'm not, and have stated my opposition to stop-and-frisk clearly, unequivocally, and recently.

So... please provide content instead of more dishonest propaganda mis-quoting me.

 

 

That's nice. Want to reaffirm your opposition?

 

Unanimous AZ Supreme Court Rules Being Armed Is No Reason To Stop And Frisk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites