Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘concealed carry’

… Thank You , Moore v. Madigan [#gun rights]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,September 11th,2016

.. crime in Chicago is down , markedly …

.. don’t expect Mayor Rahm Emmanuel to take credit for the reason why …

.. concealed – carry …

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the news report …

.. you can thank the court case Moore v Madigan for that . The loonie left is too damn scared to appeal it to the Supreme Court . You send this beauty up there , and it goes through , you in effect get nationwide concealed – carry . Boy , would the anti – gun crowd choke on this …

— [update] — the left , especially the anti – gun nuts ,  are scared to death of this case . You take this one , mix in another , say , Palmer v D.C. or Peruta v Cty of San Diego ,  and it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court . Especially if the 9th Circuit tries to play around with Peruta . Then all of those state – level and local – level gun restrictions [say , SAFE Act or Williams Act in NY is the best example] go bye – bye ….

Posted in 2nd Amendment, judgement (law enforcement), legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Where Self – Defence is Necessary [#USA]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,March 20th,2016

.. and our god – given right to our guns is a necessity …

.. you cannot always depend on government to defend yourself . Even overseas . You have to be prepared to defend yourself …

.. [h/t — theRightScoop.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. you have to be prepared with the basic elements of self – defense . Personal self – defence , no question . Some elements of basic martial arts , that would be even better …

.. also , that one would be armed with a gun , if you thought that it would be necessary …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… I was Right [9th Circuit Gun Case (Peruta v Cty of San Diego)]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,February 21st,2014

.. I picked up on this article , and this one comes from another legal blog that I like to follow , entitled the Volokh Conspiracy . It is well worth your while to look at and sample …

.. this 9th Circuit case is going to get wrapped into the New Jersey gun rights case , and both will make it to the United States Supreme Court . The full 9th Circuit might want to try to go ” en banc , ” but the Supremes will beat them to the punch , and take up the other case … it thus blocks any move against this one ….

.. Also , this one is usable in the circuit against Hawaii and California ‘ s much more odious gun laws . The district court judges may or may not respect it , but they have to follow it . Much more so when a 6-3 ruling comes down overturning the New Jersey gun law …

.. [h/t — Volokh Conspiracy]..

.. [link] to the blog post ..

Growth chart of right to carry

David Kopel

The chart below shows how Shall Issue laws for the licensed carrying of firearms for self-defense have become the American norm.

As of 1986, slightly less than 10% of the U.S. population lived in states where there were objective and fair procedures for the issuance of concealed handgun carry permits. About a third of the population lived in states where there was not even a process to apply for a permit. The majority of the population lived in states where issuance in permits was highly discretionary, and many issuing authorities refused to issue to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

By 2014, the percentage of people living in the Red states, with no possibility of even applying for a permit, has declined to zero. Illinois’ 2013 reforms ended the problem of states not even having a process theoretically available. (The problem persists in DC, but this chart is only for states.)

As of January 2014, about 2/3 of the population lived in a Green state, with a Shall Issue licensing statute.

Purple states (concealed carry is allowed without need for a permit) have increased from Vermont only in 1986 to several states comprising about 4% of the population. Currently, the Purple states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming (residents only).

The Yellow states (arbitrary permitting) were the national norm in 1986, but they are now outliers. Unless the 9th Circuits’ decision in Peruta is overturned, California and Hawaii will have to become Shall Issue states.

This will leave Yellow states at less than 1/7 of the U.S. population.

Moreover, some parts of the Yellow “may issue” states are already issuing permits as if they were Green. In New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware, permits are issued by local authorities, and in some jurisdictions, local authorities issue in a manner consistent with respect for the right to bear arms. Permits are rarely issued in Maryland, and are extremely rare in New Jersey.

The six hold-out states are increasingly isolated. Not counting tiny Rhode Island and Delaware, the four larger hold-out states each are all bordered mainly by Green states. (Mass. by upper New England and Connecticut; NY by Penn., Vt., and Conn.; NJ by Penn.; Maryland by Penn., Vir., and WV). It should also be noted that in two of Delaware’s three counties, permit issuance is often approximately what a Green state would do.

Rhode Island is sui generis. There are two licensing statutes: a “may issue” statute for the Attorney General, and a “shall issue” state for municipalities. Getting a municipality to follow the statute and issue a permit may require great persistence, and even that is not always successful.

It is interesting to compare the above chart to the map showing the demise of laws against “sodomy” (oral or anal sex), between 1970 and 2003. On the eve of Lawrence v. Texas, there were still 13 states which had sodomy statutes.

Thanks to Rob Vance for gathering the data and producing the chart.

David Kopel
David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C; and Adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 15 books and 90 scholarly journal articles.

Posted in constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Nicely Done , Illinois [Gun Bill passes]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 9th,2013

.. the Legislature , that is .

.. and to you , Governor Patrick Quinn . Up yours ! ..

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court’s deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature voted to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued it was better to approve something rather than risk the courts allowing virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate voted 41-17 in favor of the override Tuesday afternoon after the House voted 77-31, margins that met the three-fifths threshold needed to set aside the amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from southern Illinois, predicted a history-making day in which lawmakers would dismiss Quinn’s changes as politically motivated.

The law as approved by the Legislature permits anyone with a Firearm Owner’s Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours – longest of any state – to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150.

The Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that it’s unconstitutional for Illinois to ban concealed carry. The court gave state officials until June 9 to rectify the shortfall, and later extended that by a month.

.. Opinions varied about what would have happened had a law not taken effect. Gun supporters said it would have meant with no law governing gun possession, any type of firearm could be carried anywhere, at any time. Those supporting stricter gun control said local communities would have been able to set up tough restrictions.

.. Gun –  Rights advocates got the permissive law they wanted . They could well have gotten instead a New York-style plan that gives law enforcement authorities wide discretion over who gets permits . In exchange, Chicago Democrats repulsed by gun violence got a long list of places deemed off limits to guns, including schools, libraries, parks and mass transit buses and trains.

LEC here — I believe that the Federal Appeals Court will sign off on this bill . It may not be everything that they want . But the Illinois Legislature went through one hell of a fight to get to this point .

.. Even so , Moore v. Madigan will still be hanging over the heads and hands of Quinn and the Legislature . If there is any backsliding , any at all , the plaintiffs and / or the Court could re – open the case . If that were to happen , then God in Heaven help the people of the State of Illinois .

.. As to the above , and it could still happen if the Court rejects the bill , it would be anything , anywhere , at anytime , for anyone . The  court case would mean no restrictions would be allowed , period . Only if they were done state – wide would they be allowed at all .

.. I wonder . Will the court allow the F.O.I.D. process ,  or force the state to allow citizens to produce just legal id [driver license , passport , or state id] ? I will check the decision to see …

Posted in personal opinion, political opinion, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Concealed Carry is Coming , Govenor Quinn — Get Over It …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 9th,2013

Concealed Carry is Coming , Patrick

Get Over It

.. today is the day .

.. and , the Illinois Legislature should fully reject Governor Pat Quinn ’ s gun bill changes

.. today , the General Assembly will convene in Springfield. Its first action should be a swift override of Governor Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto of the concealed carry bill.

.. the short porch is this — the U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has found Illinois longstanding and outright ban on firearm being carried by civilians unconstitutional . This ban applies completely to any guns , at all , period . Not just to concealed – carry , contrary to news reports . The carry ban in public is gone , period . End of Story .

.. The Appeals Court has given the State of Illinois until July 9th [today] to come up with a full solution . This state is , at this moment , remains the last state in the union with no provision for firearm carry by ordinary citizens.

.. State Rep. Brandon Phelps , D-Harrisburg, a longtime Second Amendment defender, is one of the sponsors and was one of the lead downstate negotiators on legislation that finally got enough Chicago Democrats — including House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton — on board.

.. Amazingly enough , a fairly neutral bill made its way through the Illinois Legislature .  A bill hardly light on background checks , carry restrictions , no – gun zones , training , and other serious matters easily cleared both chambers with impressive super-majority votes in both chambers: 89-28 in the House and 45-12 in the Senate. The final bill was no sweetheart of the National Rifle Association or the Illinois State Rifle Association, which both backed up and took a formal positions of “neutral.” Some of those groups own members, as well as other pro – gun groups, ripped the potential law as too restrictive, vague and open to abuse by police.

.. Incredibly enough , Governor Quinn did not want to call it a day . He wanted a stronger bill . One which may not meet the requirements of the Appeals Court . A week before the court-imposed deadline for action, Quinn used his amendatory veto powers to issue a broad rewrite of the carry bill . Quinn ’ s rewrite would make permits even tougher to get , and it would further reduce the already-restricted places the public could carry. If not overridden, his veto effectively guts the bill.

.. Whether his actions were spurred by deep conviction , or they were motivated by practical politics, the governor’s broad amendatory veto overreached.

.. Quinn , for all his traits, seem to have waved a dismissive hand at everyone outside the city limits of Chicago, not to mention some well-informed people there who can strongly argue that guns are not the cause of Chicago’s horrendous homicide problem.

.. The Appeals Court , and the people of the State of Illinois have spoken . They have acted through their elected representatives , and they support concealed carry. Quinn’s attempt to gut the bill seems to speak volumes of his disregard for citizens other than those from his own shrinking fan club.

.. State Representative Phelps has already filed his motion to override, and he believes the bill as originally sent to Quinn has the support of both the membership numbers and the legislative leadership.

.. Quinn’s amendatory veto is bad law and bad politics.

.. The General Assembly needs to override Quinn’s veto in its entirety and send him a clear message: This political fight is over .

.. then , and only then , will the Appeals Court act , and then they may accept this bill , and think about it . They may not . Moore v. Madigan would then go into full effect . Then all hell would break loose in Illinois . Even POTUS may well be drawn into the fray .

.. The old carry ban would be gone . Not only that , the concealed – carry ban would be gone , as well . The Illinois Legislature would then have to step in , somehow .

It would turn the streets and woodlands of the state into the Wild West .

.. to be honest , that may not be such a bad idea . The bad guys and gals would have to be afraid . Very afraid . The people that they would be trying to pick on would finally be able to legally defend themselves . It is about damn time !

== Update [July 9th,2013] ==

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois was poised to become the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court’s deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature were convening to try to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued approving something was better than letting the courts allow virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate planned to take up the measure Tuesday, after the House voted 77-31 to override the Democratic governor’s amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

LEC here — the Illinois House has now voted . It is now time for the Illinois Senate to do likewise …

Posted in Investigative, personal opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Illinois Will Have Concealed – Carry , Whether Governor Quinn Likes It or Not …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 4th,2013

Also , the Gun Grabber crowd is scared [bleep]less to appeal Moore v Madigan to the United States Supreme Court

.. Concealed Carry law is coming to Illinois . Their legilature may not be wild about it . I will guarantee you that their current governor , Pat Quinn , does not like the idea one bit . It explains some of his recent actions , described below …

Quinn writes stricter rules into concealed carry bill

Ray Long and Monique Garcia

11:05 PM CDT, July 2, 2013

Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday made sweeping changes to a bill that would allow concealed guns to be carried in public, writing in tougher regulations he deemed “common sense” amid staunch criticism from lawmakers who say they are poised to overturn his efforts when they return to Springfield next week.

Flanked by gun control advocates during a veto ceremony, Quinn argued the legislation lawmakers sent him would harm public safety by letting people carry as many guns as they wanted in places they shouldn’t be allowed.

“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said after announcing the changes. “We don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in Illinois.”

The move sets up a showdown in Springfield between the Democratic governor and state lawmakers who overwhelmingly backed a rare and carefully constructed compromise on the often volatile issue of gun regulations despite ideological, cultural and geographic divisions. Lawmakers were trying to beat a federal appeals court deadline to set up rules allowing people to carry concealed weapons after judges tossed out Illinois’ last-in-the-nation ban in December.

It took sponsoring Rep. Brandon Phelps less than an hour to file a motion to override the governor’s changes. Phelps said Quinn’s actions were more about politics than policy, contending Quinn is seeking to build support among anti-gun voters in the Chicago area ahead of what could be a tough re-election bid next year.

“This puts us in a very precarious situation where those who choose to override him so that we’re compliant with the (7th) Circuit Court of Appeals reject some of the things he pointed out that are legitimate concerns,” said Rep. Andre Thapedi, D-Chicago, who said he supports an override. “Had he raised some of these issues earlier, they could have been incorporated into the bill.”

Quinn’s office argued that the governor fought for a number of changes while the bill was being drafted, only to be hampered by negotiators friendly with gun rights advocates.

Looking ahead, lawmakers return to the Capitol on July 9 and Quinn faces a tough fight given the overwhelming support the legislation received in both chambers. To override Quinn’s changes, the effort would need the support of three-fifths of lawmakers in both chambers. That’s 71 members in the House and 36 in the Senate.

The measure passed with 89 votes in the House and 45 in the Senate, meaning as many as 18 House legislators and nine senators could choose to stand with Quinn and his changes to the bill still would be rejected. That’s a tough feat for any governor, not to mention one that has routinely been criticized for issuing demands to lawmakers without working to first build support.

Lawmakers also could move to accept the governor’s suggestions, but that seems unlikely to happen, even though it puts some legislators in the position of taking a tough vote against what gun control groups say are needed public safety changes to the bill.

“He might have had some good ideas,” said Rep. Jack Franks, D-Marengo. “But if he doesn’t engage in the process, he’s not relevant.”

Quinn appealed to the public for help, encouraging people to reach out to their lawmakers over the Independence Day weekend to demand they support his plan.Last fall, Quinn launched a similar effort when he asked the public to talk about public employee pension reform during Thanksgiving dinner. A pension reform bill has yet to reach the governor’s desk.

“I think it is important in the coming week that people across our state have the opportunity to look carefully at what the legislature has proposed, and what I have changed in this bill to make it safer for the people,” Quinn said. “We ask the people of Illinois to tell their legislators, ‘please support the common sense changes that I have made in this bill.'”

Specifically, Quinn recommended that citizens be allowed to carry only one concealed weapon that can carry a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition — a major change from the legislation which puts in place no limits on how many guns or rounds could be carried.

Quinn also wants to ban guns from all places that serve alcohol, not just businesses in which booze makes up the majority of sales, as is currently written in the bill. He also wants to clarify language to make sure guns be completely concealed instead of partially, saying a gun peeking out of a pocket or purse could incite chaos.

In addition, the governor wants to give store and business owners more authority to ban guns from being carried on their property. Under the measure passed by lawmakers, guns would be allowed on the private property unless a sign was posted prohibiting them. Quinn wants to reverse that and ban guns from being carried on the private property unless an owner posts a sign giving “express permission.”

Quinn also wants employers to have more leeway to stop guns from being carried into the workplace and to require those carrying guns to immediately inform police they are carrying a gun if questioned. And he wants to strip out a provision that would give cities only 10 days after the state law takes effect to enact a local assault weapons ban, saying local officials shouldn’t have their hands tied when determining public safety needs.

The Illinois State Rifle Association ripped Quinn, saying he is attempting to severely restrict how and where citizens may carry firearms.

“Self defense isn’t some sort of carnival game where the house stacks the odds against the good guy,” said Richard Pearson, the group’s executive director, in a statement. “We’re talking about defending the lives of everyday Illinoisans here. The new restrictions appearing in Quinn’s amendatory veto encumber good citizens to the point where carrying concealed becomes pointless — which is exactly the intention of the governor and his friends in the gun control movement.”

 

[-] amendatory veto

an amendatory veto is an unusual bird . Most vetoes are the bill itself , line items , or budget items . this one allows a governor (in 7 states , matter of fact)

to amend bill , with veto protection . It could drastically overhaul a bill , and if the governor has protection , then his / her veto would be upheld , and the bill would be adopted , as amended .

Where things can be confusing , is that in Illinois , you cannot legally carry a gun on the streets , outside of your own home . That is the essence of what the court case (Moore) seeks to overhaul . The bill does allow guns to be finally carried on the streets , but the debate is over concealment , and concealed – carry .

[-] limits on guns

[-] limits on rounds

these 2 together — Quinn in essence wants to change the law , when the gun has

then been concealed , and relieve people , or limit their rights .

[-] where a gun can be taken

related to booze , and where booze is sold

[-] local assault weapon ban(s)

what an assault weapon is

He is taking off the limits on ” assault weapon ” bans on localities . It is supposed to be state-wide policy , one way or the other .

[-] concealment

none

partial

total

[-] gun possession on private property

allowed , unless banned

quinn reverses [banned , unless allowed]

LEC here — right now , this battle is over the bill . It is a carefully crafted compromise . The Democrats are not wild about the subject , but , pun intended , they have a “gun  to their head . ” They have found out that the 7th Federal Circuit court is not kidding around . Neither is Pat Quinn .

.. A veto override is likely , reinstating the original legislation , and negating Governor Quinn ‘ s proposed changes . Even with the likely override , the big question is , will the Appeals Court be O.K. with it ? They may not .

.. Also , the gun – grabbing crowd is scared to death over a possible appeal to the United States Supreme Court . If Moore v Madigan were to be appealed , and it would be upheld (by 6 to 3 , as is likely) , that type of precedent would do all sorts of damage to gun restrictions at the state level (such as Illinois ‘) . New York ‘ s Williams Act , and its recent S.A.F.E. law would , in all likelyhood , be swept away .

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »