Jump to content


Photo

Guns Save Life vs Kwame Raoul


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,181 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 30 October 2019 - 05:52 PM

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.  This is a civil lawsuit challenging the FOID Act which is broader in scope than Brown,  Brown case which is  criminial case that is narrow in scope based on the original case arguments.  The GSL case is being heard in IL Appellate Court, Fourth District.  The questioning posed by the judges is very interesting.

 

 

Case No. 4-19-0334

 

This link much easier to hear:  http://s000.tinyuplo...942564648374183


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,968 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 30 October 2019 - 06:14 PM

Cant get it to play on my tablet. An alternative link...

http://www.illinoisc...th_District.asp

multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2019/4th/100819_4-19-0334.mp3

Quality is poor with extreme low audio.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 30 October 2019 - 08:14 PM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#3 steveTA84

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 30 October 2019 - 06:29 PM

Going on the offensive feels good. Bravo GSL

#4 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 30 October 2019 - 07:00 PM

What is this lawsuit about? There is no context here, and the links won't play for me.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
 
"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
 
Posted Image     

#5 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Members
  • 4,390 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 30 October 2019 - 07:15 PM

Delete

Edited by Bubbacs, 30 October 2019 - 07:16 PM.


#6 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 30 October 2019 - 08:06 PM

Unreal.. all the money the state spends on crap , they cant get a good sound system.


Edited by Sweeper13, 30 October 2019 - 08:06 PM.


#7 WitchDoctor

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,368 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 16

Posted 30 October 2019 - 08:34 PM

Remrmbrt, Illinois is broke, only enough money for graft and criminal politics.


IC Sponsor

ISRA Member

Proud Parent to  wonderful, most times, kids...

Tired of Chicago B.S.

Violence and force is what criminals understand!

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


#8 MrSmallie

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 17

Posted 30 October 2019 - 08:42 PM

Well the Justices actually sounded like they were thinking logically...



#9 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,767 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 30 October 2019 - 09:42 PM

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.

 

I ran the audio file through a few quicky filters (compressor, hiss reduction, normalizer and converted to mono) nothing to brag about just default filters, but it makes it easier to hear/listen to.

 

http://s000.tinyuplo...942564648374183


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#10 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,181 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 31 October 2019 - 09:48 AM

 

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.

 

I ran the audio file through a few quicky filters (compressor, hiss reduction, normalizer and converted to mono) nothing to brag about just default filters, but it makes it easier to hear/listen to.

 

http://s000.tinyuplo...942564648374183

 

 

WOW!!!!  Much better, thank you!


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#11 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 31 October 2019 - 10:09 AM

Title has typo, guns save lives.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#12 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,077 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 31 October 2019 - 10:12 AM

Title has typo, guns save lives.


The title is correct. Guns save life is the organization's name.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#13 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,181 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 31 October 2019 - 10:14 AM



 

Title has typo, guns save lives.

That would be correct grammatically, but it is not the name of the org.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#14 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 22,159 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 31 October 2019 - 10:44 AM

Title has typo, guns save lives.


There's a different organization with that name, but they're not involved in this case.

#15 mikeyk101

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Joined: 25-February 15

Posted 31 October 2019 - 11:22 AM

He may be talking about the safe part. Both organizations start with Guns Save (Guns Save Life v Guns Save Lives) but the thread title says Guns Safe...

Edited by mikeyk101, 31 October 2019 - 11:24 AM.


#16 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,181 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 31 October 2019 - 11:39 AM

Got it.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#17 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,961 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 31 October 2019 - 01:58 PM

He may be talking about the safe part. Both organizations start with Guns Save (Guns Save Life v Guns Save Lives) but the thread title says Guns Safe...


Yep, I was talking about the safe part.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#18 Timber

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 18-December 18

Posted 10 November 2019 - 05:23 PM

Ty for doing the audio fix. I was really enthused at the questions the judges were raising. Let's hope this eventually leads to the end of theb foid.

#19 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,638 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 12 November 2019 - 09:36 AM

If this prevails, I can see this idiotic state passing a CA like law, where they require a BC for all ammo purchases.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#20 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,638 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 12 November 2019 - 09:54 AM

The State's Attourney has a real condescending attitude, tone and delivery.  There seems to be at least one 2a favorable male judge. 


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#21 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,638 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 12 November 2019 - 10:15 AM

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden.  Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#22 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,968 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 12 November 2019 - 12:30 PM

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden.  Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

I thought they dropped the in-person requirement in a later amendment?

Edited by InterestedBystander, 12 November 2019 - 04:08 PM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#23 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,638 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 12 November 2019 - 02:32 PM

 

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden.  Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

I thought they dropped the in-person requiremment in a later amendment?

 

Did they?  Maybe so.  Hope so.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#24 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,181 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 June 2020 - 01:09 PM

Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.

 

https://courts.illin...ict/4190334.pdf

"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .

 

While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .

 

Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.

 

- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION

 

81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

¶ 82Affirmed.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#25 steveTA84

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,672 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 05 June 2020 - 01:43 PM

Ok. New plaintiff needed for new case.

Anyone who doesn’t have a FOID currently that is being held up because of the system because they they felt the need for protection because of all the uncertainty going on the past few months?.....

#26 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 05 June 2020 - 01:45 PM

I don't get it.  They are simply saying that due to receiving an ID card worth the approximate value of the fee, that it's OK to restrict a Constitutional Right?  OK, where are Mandatory REAL Voter Cards?  And what about Freedom of Speech cards?  Do we now need to register for every frigging right we have?  What a cluster.


Edited by mrmagloo, 05 June 2020 - 01:49 PM.


#27 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,011 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 05 June 2020 - 03:00 PM

I don't get it.  ...


The case is still live. There's just no injunction pending the final outcome of the case. However, part of the logic of denying the injunction is that the court thinks Guns Save Life is going to lose the case eventually, anyway.

Edited by Euler, 05 June 2020 - 03:00 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#28 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 05 June 2020 - 04:03 PM

Yeah, I'm following, but the fact that they think restricting a right by a licensing scheme is OK, simply because the fee is reasonable in exchange for the cost of the license itself is mind numbing.  That's like saying it's OK for the government to charge a mandatory fee to tattoo a barcode on your forehead, if the fee is roughly inline with the cost of the damn tattoo. What the  h e l l  does that have to do with the core loss of Constitutionally GUARANTEED Rights? 



#29 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 05 June 2020 - 04:28 PM

Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.

 

https://courts.illin...ict/4190334.pdf

"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .

 

While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .

 

Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.

 

- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION

 

81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

¶ 82Affirmed.

 

 

That was only on the Tax portion, I thought they were agreeing with the plaintiff on the First portion which was the FOID ACT being unconstitutional.


Edited by mab22, 05 June 2020 - 04:34 PM.

Void the FOID!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users