Jump to content

Cook County gun/ammo tax. (Audio link)


Sweeper13

Recommended Posts

First ..If this was posted already plz link where and delete this. I couldn't find and thought I was following most of the cases. I was shocked at what the State thinks about the 2nd. That's why NY case is so important and shouldn't be moot. I thought our side did really well.

 

Anyway here you go...

 

From FFL of Illinois FB page. I cant get a link to there page..

 

Earlier this week oral arguments were heard in the case against the Cook County gun/ammo tax. . . .

\

 

 

https://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2020/1st/011420_1-18-1846.mp3?fbclid=IwAR2tKUYajjZ_NVc8NQED8gfR_K3MWEOoM4VwaRK7vNTgT04PDYTWZq37BDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the short version is Crook county can tax anyone for anything and spend the tax anyway they want. As the county's lawyer said the right to bear arms is NOT a right.

 

Citizen pick up that can.

 

More specifically they were arguing that it’s only right so those can be trampled. Fundamental rights are sacred and that is not a fundamental right. They seem to forget the McDonald case which kind of solidified the second amendment as a fundamental right by incorporation via the 14th amendment.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will tax Catholics next. Millions of those wallets in Crook County!

I used that analogy, it’s like a special tax on bibles and using that for the “general fund”.

 

which makes an interesting case where FOID and CCL funds get swept into a general fund as a source of revenue. What’s the difference between the counties special tax or fee and the way the state is treating it with the license fees?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

 

 

That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.

 

I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?

Be careful !! You don't want to give them any more ideas, do you ?? :frantics: :pinch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?

Be careful !! You don't want to give them any more ideas, do you ?? :frantics: :pinch:

 

 

That's actually something that I HOPE some idiots in a municipal or state-level government tries, because once that is shot down as unconstitutional, then there will be precedent that any such tax on a Constitutional right or freedom would be similarly unconstitutional, and could be used to end this kind of stupidity once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

 

 

That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.

 

I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.

 

But how long will that all take? It's death by 1000 cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

 

 

That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.

 

I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.

 

 

Our supreme court considers it a right.

Johnson vs ISP

 

"Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court: We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii)."

 

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70079&do=findComment&comment=1246315

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...