Constitutional Carry is what Illinois secretly wants

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.

I'm starting to think that the politicians have us all fooled and that Constitutional Carry is what they secretly want.

They act like they are working for a solution and when they don't get it, it becomes Constitutional Carry. They'll let us think we've won when they've gotten what they really want. All of the 2nd Amendment proponents are ecstatic and think its great. However, counties like Cook County and cities like Chicago already secretly have in place ordinances that they will enact once this happens and their ordinances will basically be what they have now. Accept only a few will be able to actually carry and that will be the elite. The hoops that people will have to jump through will be impossible for the ordinary citizen. And anyone coming into these anti-gun cities and counties will be prosecuted if caught violating these ordinances.


Sure people will be able to carry in other cities and counties, but the anti-gun cities and counties will get to keep the status quo while the pro-2nd Amendment folks will think they have won a huge victory.
.
 
Im Not sure what you're saying. are you saying that madigan and the rest of Springfield secretly want constitutional carry?
 
.

I'm saying I think they know they have to have some type of carry, however Quinn doesn't want it in cities like Chicago and counties like Cook and the best he can do is allow the rest of the state to have it while he can basically deny it in the counties and cities he wants to with ordinances that basically make it impossible to obtain permit to carry.



Basically losing one battle but winning the overall war in the cities and counties he wants gun-less while putting on the show that Illinois followed the law.
.
 
So if il gets constitutional carry, there would be no state preemption and a complicated patchwork of local ordinances would be established to make it useless except for the 10% of illini that live south Decatur?
 
.

Yes. I don't think most of the politicians want the citizens of Illinois to have guns. Especially in Cook County.



If they did, they'd have it by now.
.
 
^+1

And when the IL Congress can't come up with a concealed carry bill, Lisa Madigan will step in to save the day with an appeal to SCOTUS thus further delaying the day when Chicagoans will be subjected to the horror of hidden guns! :cuss::cuss::banghead::banghead::barf:
 
First off - even if the legislature does nothing, Illinois will NOT get "Constitutional Carry" as we still have to have the FOID card to even possess ammo! :eek:

While the pre-emption clause in the House approved version is desireable, Cullerton's Senate version is only fit to line the bottom of a birdcage. Neither version is anywhere close to "acceptable". :cuss: :banghead:

"Falling off the cliff" isn't wanted either. Think about it: over 200 "home rule" towns/cities in Illinois - each with their own conflicting sets of rules. You could be charged with a felony just for going to your next door neighbor! Or crossing the street to get your mail. Illinois would have a crazy, conflicting, confusing set of laws that would be impossible to follow. It WOULD end up being a "money-maker" for those restrictive cities as somebody from elsewhere inadvertently violates the law. :fire:

Illinois is already the laughing stock of the entire nation. Does the Legislature really want to make that situation WORSE?? :neener:
 
.

JT Hunter, that's exactly what they want. To make it worse. Under the guise of following the law no one will be able to and those that do will be made criminals for doing so and live in fear of leaving their home city with a gun.
.
 
The people of IL, like CA, NY, NJ, MA et al, can stew in their own juices. Nobody built a Berlin Wall around your states to keep you there. If you left, denying them of the tax dollars they reap from you, only then might there be change. You're ultimately responsible for the mindset of the people that vote these idiots in.
 
I left both NY and CA, leaving (extended) family behind and moved to Free America. Your parents will love warmer weather and you can either sell or rent the property. I didn't say it's easy. Things that are worthwhile often aren't.
 
Fighting alone, behind enemy lines, is not the best strategy. That said, props to you for recognizing your priorities and acting accordingly. No need to drag everyone else over half the country for an issue they may or may not feel as strongly about--that could be considered a form of tyranny itself :D

TCB
 
So, just to play devils advocate:

Violating an ordinance is generally not the equal to being charged with a felony. It would be interesting and enlightening to have Frank or one of the other lawyers explain what the maximum penalties associated with local ordinance violations can be. None are indictable offenses, in my laymans understanding of the law.


Willie

.
 
I don't get what the OP is saying... please educate me.


If IL get "constitutional carry" (commonly known as no permit needed like AZ AK and I think VT etc) how are they going to enact laws that 'only allow the elite to carry'?

I see the angle of making so many area restriction that it dilutes the intention but I don't understand the "only the elite will be able to carry" angle.
 
I don't get what the OP is saying... please educate me.


If IL get "constitutional carry" (commonly known as no permit needed like AZ AK and I think VT etc) how are they going to enact laws that 'only allow the elite to carry'?

I see the angle of making so many area restriction that it dilutes the intention but I don't understand the "only the elite will be able to carry" angle.
Click to expand...


I believe they could make ordinances that would basically stomp out Constitutional Carry, such as you can't take it on any public transportation, can't have it at work, can't have it within 100 yards of a school.
.
 
usmarine0352_2005 said:
I believe they could make ordinances that would basically stomp out Constitutional Carry, such as you can't take it on any public transportation, can't have it at work, can't have it within 100 yards of a school.
.
Click to expand...
Sort of like Freedom of Speech in the old Soviet Union (and current North Korea). You can say anything you want.....once. (credit to Mad Magazine 50 years ago)

So, you can carry anywhere you want.....just not in any bank, government building, any place where alcohol is served or sold, within 100 yards of any school, church, day care center, ad nauseum. And if local ordnances preempt the State law, a town could outlaw carry entire.

Lost Sheep
 
I agree with that being a possibility.

But I don't understand the 'only the elite will be able to carry'. That insinuates that only the elite will get permission to carry (via CCP type thing).
 
The CA 7th has already said that the state AUUW and UUW laws were unconstitutional. If home rule cities like Chicago have their own laws you will get arrested and go to jail. Yes, with a good lawyer and lots of money you will get the charges dropped as the home rule laws on AUUW and UUW would be just as unconstitutional. Cities like Chicago don't care. So who wants to be the poster child for Constitutional carry and be the first one arrested to get the ball rolling to force home rule cities to abide by the CA7 mandate?
 
I usually try to define all obscure abbreviations and acronyms the first time I use them, as you suggest. It is only polite, and tends to encourage support (or at least, sympathy) for whatever cause I am touting.

danez71 said:
Whats "AUUW and UUW"?

Maybe spell it out just once in your posts for us dummies.
Click to expand...
The American Association of University Women (AAUW) advances equity for women and girls

Or, in relation to Illinois FOID (Firearms Owners ID [Identification]) perhaps (AS i found by doing an internet search on the phrase "Illinois AAUW")

Unlawful Use of a Weapon or aggravated unlawful use of a weapon

implied by what I read here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1572251.html

It certainly aggravates me when posts use acronyms that are unfamiliar to me, but it is understandable. People who are the cognoscenti and unfamiliar with the jargon and acronyms and do not consider that those not steeped in the culture may be let in the dark, out in the cold and alienated to the detriment of all of us.

(Before you jump on me, "cognoscenti" is a legitimate English work and found in any standard dictionary. Acronyms take a little more research. I used the obscure work to make a point.)

OK, Soapbox mode, off.

Lost Sheep
 
Illinois could never have "Constitutional Carry" without a state law calling it that. What we would have would be "Court Ordered Chaos." Because we are a home rule state without a state law with preemption we would simply have a bunch of home rule municipalities passing laws. From town to town the CCW laws would be different and carry would be the most dangerous thing you could do for your own freedom.

The only route for us is to pass a preemptive law, which will clear both houses probably today.
 
And how's that woirking for ya? When you could be enjoying life in Free America.

You're never going to get a carry law that's worth a damn in IL.
Click to expand...

I just don't think that this is the best way to deal with problems. I applaud the hard work that is being done in Illinois and wish them every success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Victory in Deerfield, Illinois!
Replies
10
Views
860
Riomouse911
Riomouse911
U
  • Locked
What is the politicians long-term strategy in Illinois?
Replies
8
Views
471
itsa pain
I
U
  • Locked
Illinois: Constitutional Carry or Carry Restrictions per City?
Replies
11
Views
733
Trent
Trent
A
  • Locked
Virginia governor’s call for 18- officer gun ban enforcement team comes under fire
Replies
23
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
D
  • Locked
Constitutional or “Permitless” Carry in Play in Several States
Replies
12
Views
948
mrvco
M
Back
Top