Jump to content


Photo

Wilson v. Cook County (Semi-Auto Gun Ban)


  • Please log in to reply
694 replies to this topic

#631 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 10 May 2015 - 09:46 AM

I don't understand the fast tracking to SCOTUS. You have at least a shot at en banc, which would erase the Freidman opinion and get us back to square one. Further, the IL state courts aren't bound by CA7 (although it's certainly persuasive authority). So Wilson can still win with the Freidman opinion in place. And even though the opinion was crappy, SCOTUS reviews actual judgments, not the opinions contained in the judgments, and with SCOTUS' passing on ALL 2A cases I think it highly unlikely they jump on the very first AWB case to reach it.

Remember that SCOTUS won't even act on a Freidman petition (even one filed tomorrow) until the opening conference in late September/early October. En banc would be likely granted or denied by then anyway.



#632 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,181 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 07 December 2015 - 12:53 PM

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.
The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate  court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.   



#633 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,774 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 07 December 2015 - 05:14 PM

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.
The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate  court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.   

Nice!

Then on to the IL supreme, 7th Circuit (who are both going to cite 7th circuit president) then another appeal to SCOTUS right?

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#634 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:14 PM

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.
The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate  court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.

Nice!

Then on to the IL supreme, 7th Circuit (who are both going to cite 7th circuit president) then another appeal to SCOTUS right?

I wouldn't get too excited..the reality is that for a judge deciding the constitutionality of a law, a higher court's decision carries a lot of weight. Since this is the 2A we're talking about, there's no guarantee that Cohen would rule to strike the ban. Although it's not binding precedent, the denial of cert issued by the SCOTUS would still be ammunition for the antis and the judges in this state certainly aren't inclined to uphold the 2A unless they have to.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#635 POAT54

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 17 December 2015 - 11:20 PM

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.
The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate  court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.   

Has anyone heard any news?


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#636 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,181 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 18 December 2015 - 01:55 PM

This morning, Judge Cohen was told that Victor Quilici (lead attorney for Wilson) had passed away, and was asked for some additional time to sort out how plaintiffs would like to move forward in the case.
Judge Cohen understood, and asked us to return on 
February 5 for another status conference.



#637 POAT54

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 18 December 2015 - 03:45 PM

Thank you for your response.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#638 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 02 February 2016 - 12:44 PM

Three days!


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#639 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 02 February 2016 - 01:16 PM

Three days!

 

 

What???  Something in three days???



#640 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 17,379 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 02 February 2016 - 01:16 PM

Three days!

 
 
What???  Something in three days???


Druid mentioned that Judge Cohen asked them to return on 2/5/2016.

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#641 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 02 February 2016 - 01:25 PM

 

 

Three days!

 
 
What???  Something in three days???

 


Druid mentioned that Judge Cohen asked them to return on 2/5/2016.

 

 

Yes, three days and then we can start nagging him for updates again. :laugh:


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#642 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 02 February 2016 - 05:56 PM

Anyone wanna proffer theories on what will happen next?
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#643 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,431 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 02 February 2016 - 06:31 PM

Unless a judge wants to thumb his nose at Easterbrook's pathetic feelings and emotions trump rights ruling which is controlling in the 7th circuit, I doubt we get anything material out of Wilson.

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#644 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 02 February 2016 - 09:25 PM

Wilson is filed in state court so the 7th circuit opinion is not binding (though it may be found to be compelling especially given that the case was held pending the result of Friedman).  Regardless, appeal (by either side) would go to the State Supreme Court (again) and that decision could be appealed (via cert petition) directly to SCOTUS bypassing the 7th.  I don't know if Wilson has preserved any issues of state law ("Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -- a legal morass if there ever was one...)  If so, the IL supreme court could escape all scrutiny from SCOTUS.



#645 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,156 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 02 February 2016 - 10:45 PM

Would the court be able to consider whether the handguns defined as "assault weapons" violate the preemption in the FCCA? I know Wilson predates the FCCA by several years, but I don't think there have been any substantial changes to the ban since the case began Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#646 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 05 February 2016 - 12:43 PM

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?


Edited by officedrone, 05 February 2016 - 12:43 PM.

“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#647 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 05 February 2016 - 12:58 PM

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?


Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#648 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,156 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 05 February 2016 - 01:35 PM

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?

Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?

Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#649 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 05 February 2016 - 06:46 PM

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?

Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?

Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
What do our chances look like at the Illinois Supreme Court?

Edited by MrTriple, 05 February 2016 - 06:47 PM.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#650 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,156 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 06 February 2016 - 11:48 AM

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?
Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
What do our chances look like at the Illinois Supreme Court?

Considering that the CA7 found the Highland Park ban (a verbatim copy of Cook's ban) to be constitutional, and the IL state constitution has less protection of the right to keep and bear arms, I'd say we don't have a snowball's chance in [heck]

BUT, if the CA4 ruling holds then we will have a bona-fide circuit split when appealing to SCOTUS, which will make them more likely to take the case

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#651 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 06 February 2016 - 04:59 PM

The ILSC has been altering its opinions in cases which conflict with SCOTUS precedent so I wouldn't expect a departure from that policy any time soon. It modified a case out of Sterling where a cop pulled a man over after running the tags, finding out that the registrant had an outstanding warrant. Too bad the driver wasn't the registrant...or a woman (registrant is female). LEO knew he didn't stop the subject of the warrant and continued with the stop, found the driver had a suspended license. Court tossed it then reinstated the conviction after Rodriguez v. U.S. was decided. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#652 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,181 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 09 February 2016 - 04:55 PM

Last week, there was another continuation for Wilson. The court continued the case in light of the 4th Circuit’s decision regarding the Maryland ban, and the soon-to-be-filed petitions for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the 2d Circuit’s decision on the New York and Connecticut bans.



#653 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:14 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean the case is on hold waiting SCOTUS to decide weather or not they want to address the split?

Edit: oops looks like I'm confused again, what I meant to say was waiting g for the fourth circuit to apply strict scrutiny

Edited by gearsmithy, 09 February 2016 - 05:19 PM.


#654 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,181 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:33 PM

It's on hold for six months. Which at that point, there will be another hearing to assess further continuation or not.



#655 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,908 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:57 PM

Is the hold for six months sort of like the "30-day" letter the ISP has been sending out? If so, this could go on for a long time!


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#656 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 09 February 2016 - 06:07 PM

Last week, there was another continuation for Wilson. The court continued the case in light of the 4th Circuit’s decision regarding the Maryland ban, and the soon-to-be-filed petitions for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the 2d Circuit’s decision on the New York and Connecticut bans.[/size]


Normally I'd cheer this, but given our luck with Friedman and the fact that Kennedy might not side with us if cert is granted, I feel like giving out a loud groan. Who knows, maybe our luck will be better, or maybe we'd be tying our own noose on the "assault weapons" issue. Best of luck I guess.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#657 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 10 February 2016 - 01:38 PM

When Kolbe is finally judged on by CA4, presumably after Blake is forced to eat crow on remand, hold trial or grant summary judgment finding in favor of Plaintiffs and that judgment is affirmed by the Circuit, SCOTUS will have to take it. It's a significant departure from stare decisis and would be almost an automatic cert grant because of the constitutional question. This isn't like Moore. CA4's mandate in Kolbe creates a huge equal protection issue. Well, will create after Blake has to reverse herself. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#658 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 10 February 2016 - 05:13 PM

When Kolbe is finally judged on by CA4, presumably after Blake is forced to eat crow on remand, hold trial or grant summary judgment finding in favor of Plaintiffs and that judgment is affirmed by the Circuit, SCOTUS will have to take it. It's a significant departure from stare decisis and would be almost an automatic cert grant because of the constitutional question. This isn't like Moore. CA4's mandate in Kolbe creates a huge equal protection issue. Well, will create after Blake has to reverse herself.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


Again, I agree with the bolded section, but my concern is this: while the SCOTUS should grant cert when the time comes, they haven't always ruled the way they should have in different cases throughout the course of their history. While it is a slam dunk, they could decide to knock the ball away just because they can. We know the court is split in half on the 2A, and Kennedy is believed to have come to regret supporting Heller and McDonald. He can't be relied upon to rule correctly on any future 2A cases.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#659 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 February 2016 - 04:07 PM

This creates a huge problem. That problem being those who live within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit basically have more rights than those under the jurisdiction of the other federal circuits. We get the asinine intermediate scrutiny using the two-step "Does/do the conduct or item(s) in question fall under the protection of the Second Amendment? If so, how much does this law burden the right." Well I have to say that's a ridiculously subjective question. Just because they say it's a de minimis burden doesn't mean anything. It's the opinion of three unelected, unaccountable, likely partisan judges. I respect Chief Judge Traxler for tossing politics to the wayside and interpreting the Second Amendment as written. Not as some archaic, deprecated Constitutional Amendment that doesn't really apply today because the Founders couldn't have foreseen the firearms in use today. Of course the Framers didn't expect us to be using muskets today. Only an idiot would believe that technology doesn't improve. They couldn't have imagined the future but they were intelligent enough to realize that, like any civilization, we would improve on or develop new technology. Anything less is myopic. While Kennedy may regret his decisions in Heller and McDonald, it really doesn't matter. He's on record. So for him to do a complete 180 would be unprecedented. "I supported if before I didn't support it." What would concern me, with the Court being 4-4 (or even 5-4) is the question involving the standard of judicial review. Thank God we have the Scalia and Thomas dissents in denial of cert in Jackson and Friedman. We do not apply different standards to different rights. First Amendment gets more protection than Second. No question. That should not be the case. The Constitution's guarantees are not contingent on a body count. Besides, the First Amendment is far more dangerous than the Second. Bottom line is that I'd feel better if we get a Republican in the WH and Ginsburg (and likely Kennedy, Breyer as well) retire soon. Remember, Kennedy said he wouldn't retire unless a Republican is elected POTUS. Get a Dem POTUS and we will see a Court where the Rule of Four is rendered useless because Roberts and Alito will be the only two conservative (compared to Sotomayor) Justices left. With seven liberals on the Court, they'll be able to do whatever they want from the bench. "health insurance is a basic right" "a job is a civil right" "college education is a right" "abort your child whenever you want. Even post-birth." Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#660 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 27 February 2016 - 11:42 PM

"Supreme Court rules that you have the constitutional right to an abortion through the fourth tri-mester."  lol.  Sounds like an Onion article.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users