Fed case calling Illinois gun laws illegal getting hearing

[LAGC]

SPRINGFIELD — A two-front push is being made in Illinois to weaken some of the most restrictive gun regulation laws in the country.

Gun-rights advocates claim that Illinois is violating the Second Amendment by prohibiting Illinois residents from being able to, in some fashion, carry a firearm in public. A hearing on one such case, in which Michael Moore, of Champaign, and the Second Amendment Foundation Inc., a gun-rights advocacy group, are suing Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office and the state of Illinois, is scheduled Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Springfield.

Recent events around the nation could give gun-rights advocates the momentum they need to win a fight that’s time and again seen them on the losing side.
..
..
A nearly identical lawsuit with nearly identical arguments is unfolding in a U.S. District Court in southern Illinois. The Illinois State Rifle Association, or ISRA, a group dedicated to furthering firearm rights and affiliated with the National Rifle Association, or NRA, is backing both cases but is only a plaintiff in the southern Illinois instance.

ISRA is joined by Mary Shepard as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Madigan and the state of Illinois.

“We have a very strong case,” Todd Vandermyde, a NRA lobbyist, said. “When you look at some of the briefs that have been filed by the state and attorney general and some of the arguments they are trying to make, I think it is clear they are very, very nervous.”

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/6668/fed-case-calling-illinois-gun-laws-illegal-getting-hearing/

Ah, the last refuge of strict gun control, about to be torn asunder. The gun controllers must be getting very nervous indeed.

That damn, pesky Second Amendment...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DonP]

3. No, THE last state. You must be right and 49 states are wrong, huh?

Yeah that makes sense.

The elected representatives of the people, voted in a bipartisan way, for CCW, SCOTUS has ruled twice in 2 years on the 2nd, and somehow they are all wrong and your little tiny interpretation must be right.

That's the kind of principled leadership we need to lose the Senate and WH.

Keep up the good work and make sure you assure all your friends that the Dems really aren't really coming for their guns.

BTW, referring to your fellow DU members as "Gunloons" doesn't go over well with anyone.

[gejohnston]

4. check the murder rate over the past ten years or so

compare it among the states and laws. Check before and after after laws were passed or repealed.
"sane gun law" is as cliche as it is meaningless.

[slackmaster]

5. FYI, divisive terms like "gunloons" and "gun-grabbing monkeys" are not well tolerated on this forum

:hi:

[DonP]

6. He must be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Obama!

They both have confirmed that the 2nd confers an individual right.

Wow! That's pretty harsh talk about two leading progressives from a Dem. Maybe he didn't get the memo?

[PavePusher]

11. Sane? Fucking seriously?

May I see your BOID card please? (Book Owners ID)

[Atypical Liberal]

2. Awesome!

Of course, many of us have seen this coming. The march of freedom for people to have the means to defend themselves has been steadily proceeding since 1986.

People deserve to have access to the tools to defend themselves from armed violence without resorting to a physical contest of strength with their attackers.

[jaxx]

7. We don't want Illinois gun laws changed.

But thanks for the heads up, I'll start calling my rep again.

[DonP]

8. Yes we do. I have 12,000 people ready to march in Springfield, what do you have?

You, flaky Pfeleger and a retired Mayor Daley?

We missed it by only 6 votes last session. Next session we'll come closer, just like Wisconsin. Even Madigan won't be able to stop it. His spokesperson announced today that he is willing to consider a possible CCW law for Illinois.

Like the other 49 states it will pass with a bipartisan vote and plenty of Dem support outside of Crook County.

[spin]

10. But you have to be concerned about all the hard working criminals ...

who now will have to face an unsafe workplace environment.

[PavePusher]

12. So, are you happy to be paying for Daley's "security for life" package?

And willing to deny it to everyone else?

Certain words come to mind...

[DonP]

19. You left out Aldercritter Burke's free "security"

Ald. Ed Burke, based on a vague threat in 1986 that no one can seem to find in the records, had had a permanent security detail, including 3 drivers and two cars, for his convenience and "safety".

Annual cost is estimated at $600,000 based on documents from a FOIA request, and a follow up lawsuit when the city ignored the request, by the Better Government Assn.

That rounds out to about $15 million for the 25 years for one powerful alderman. Daley's team is much larger, includes his wife and two cars and for any and all trips he might make. But that has no relationship to schools being closed or fire stations being shuttered due to budget issues.

But regular citizens don't need a firearm in their own home without paying $150 for a license, getting a FOID card and a city permit, and renewed every two years.

Madigan, who runs the legislature, is already starting to side step the issue and had a spokesperson today announce that he is "considering allowing a CCW law". I think he's going to push to get a "may issue" style law passed so he keeps some control over it and can use it to raise campaign contributions. But the downstate Dems won't stand for it, after Wisconsin got "shall issue".

[PavePusher]

26. The more I hear about Chicago pols...

the more nauseous I get.

[Euromutt]

9. Calling your rep to do... what?

Start working on seceding from the Union? It's part of the system of checks and balances in the American system of government that the judiciary acts as a check on the legislative branch of government by having the power to determine whether laws created by the legislative branch pass constitutional muster. It's the first line of defense against the tyranny of the majority.

There's not a lot your rep can do to influence the rulings of federal district courts, or more precisely, your rep shouldn't be able to exert such influence.

[jaxx]

20. Calling my rep to say NO, we do not want concealed carry.

My rep has a vote in the Illinois legislature.

Go to Iowa and leave us alone.

[X_Digger]

21. Different branches of government..

If a court says that IL's absolute prohibition on carry (concealed and open) violates the second amendment's protection of 'keep and bear'-- there's really fuck all your legislator can do about it.

Sure they can try to throw up road blocks, 'gotcha' conditions that appear reasonable on paper but are next to unmeetable in practice.. that might buy you six months to a year before someone else takes it to court (as is happening in DC) and all the legislature ends up doing is providing funding for more cases when the state loses..

Yeah, good luck with that.

[jaxx]

22. 6 months or a year is worth it....whtever it takes.

A well regulated militia......that would be the National Guard.

[X_Digger]

23. "The right of the people".. not the right of the militia.

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Abuse of whose powers? Restrictive against whom? Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

You should read cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

[jaxx]

24. Yes, we know how it has been twisted.

The NRA, that republican brand, has done a job.

[X_Digger]

25. That's it?

How else do *you* interpret the preamble? And what historical reference do you present that supports your position?

[DonP]

27. Yup, the NRA was twisting the meaning 75 years before they were founded!

It's obvious. Wayne LaPierre used the NRA's secret time machine to change all those documents to shift the "real" meaning of well regulated.

They even got to Obama and Ruth Ginsburg to get them to agree to the individual rights "twisted" interpretation.

[Euromutt]

30. That's precisely what I was pointing out

If a court rules that your state's law prohibiting concealed carry is unconstitutional, your legislators can't make it constitutional simply by insisting they won't change it. That's not how the American system of government works.

[Starboard Tack]

13. I think it's probably inevitable, but all sanity is not lost.

Our gunny friend ONESHOOTER (Armed and Livin' in Texas) and I have come up with a kinda "bipartisan" solution.
All toters who carry concealed should be on a list, with name and address available to the public. That's ONESHOOTER's idea and a very good one, I must say. But, obviously, not enough, because the public has a right to know at all times. Like when the knights of old would be riding down the highway on their trusty steeds, their shiny swords would be visible to all and sundry, so that we, the poor defenseless peasants could get out of their way.
So, we came up with the idea of wearing something highly distinguishable like a large, pointy, cone shaped hat with a "G" on it. That would be "G" for GUN. I think my buddy ONESHOOTER (Armed and Livin' in Texas), got confused and thought the "G" stood for "German" and suggested that toters might wear a yellow, six pointed star. Well, I liked the star bit, but yellow and six pointed? Definitely not appropriate,. So we came up with a 5 pointed star with a "G" in the middle of the large, pointy, cone shaped hat.
So now, we need suggestions for colors.

[gejohnston]

15. at the risk of violating Godwin's Law

may I suggest a red triangle with a G?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges

[Starboard Tack]

16. No, I'm sticking with the large pointy hat with a "G", or possibly "GT"

now color suggestions are being accepted.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Same hat, different color with a "C" or "DL" for drivers. They kill more than gun owners do.

AND they'll need to have the license *on* the hat, where we can see it.
Since you're down with public disclosure, can we have your real name and address?

[Starboard Tack]

18. You certainly could if I carried a firearm, you know, like cops wear badges to ID them

Don't know what drivers would have to do with anything, or do you use your car for self defense?

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Because drivers kill more people in the US than gun owners do.

And I daresay that the victims of road crashes are just as dead as shooting victims, no matter the intended use of the
inanimate obect that kills them.

[Starboard Tack]

29. "Because drivers kill more people in the US than gun owners do"

Do you think they do that intentionally? Like they are using their vehicles as weapons? If so, let's ban the fuckers right now.

[oneshooter]

31. You are not my "Buddy" in any way. You are decietful and to be pitied. n/t

[Glassunion]

14. Haha! Such celebrity

Michael Moore
Jon Maier