Illinois Supreme Court Accepts Wilson

[Yas]

Remember this all started with this sneakily phrased referendum on the 2006 general election.

 

 

 

“For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?”

[bob]

So is their some sort of temporary injunction type thing where they are not able to prosecute while this case is in the works?

 

 

It would be kind of a moot point given they don't seem to be actively enforcing it.

[Drylok]

Hey farmer don't you have a similar complaint filed?

 

Kinda-sorta. I am challenging a misinterpretation of Chicago's AWB, but not the AWB itself. They define an "Assault Rifle" as a semi-automatic that can accept detachable magazines and has one feature (such as bayonet mount) but have ruled my fixed magazine SKS rifles as having a detachable magazine because they can be modified to accept detachable magazines.

 

Oh ya I remember the pictures you had at IGOLD. Talk about splitting hairs

[Sigma]

So is their some sort of temporary injunction type thing where they are not able to prosecute while this case is in the works?

 

 

It would be kind of a moot point given they don't seem to be actively enforcing it.

 

But they could!

[bob]

So is their some sort of temporary injunction type thing where they are not able to prosecute while this case is in the works?

 

 

It would be kind of a moot point given they don't seem to be actively enforcing it.

 

But they could!

 

I doubt a judge would issue any kind of order on this kind of case, being as it is almost certainly going to lose in illinois. There just is no right recognized by the state of Illinois to own any firearm at all.

[GarandFan]

Remember this all started with this sneakily phrased referendum on the 2006 general election.

 

 

 

“For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?”

 

Well, perhaps not entirely. Remember that 1993 was the year Cook county first enacted an ordinance banning certain semiauto firearms.

 

The 2006 ordinance was simply an expansion of the original ban.

 

I will be happy to see these unconstitutional infringements go down in flames ... and would be happy to see those SOBs who enacted them also go down in flames.

[Mark C.]

So this is the 2nd trip to SCOIL, correct? When they remanded to the First District Appellate Court, ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on McDonald, wouldn't you expect more from the First District Appellate than what they did? Wouldn't you be just a little on the peeved side?

[bob]

So this is the 2nd trip to SCOIL, correct? When they remanded to the First District Appellate Court, ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on McDonald, wouldn't you expect more from the First District Appellate than what they did? Wouldn't you be just a little on the peeved side?

 

What is there to be peeved about? We have to be in this for the long run. This is like the preseason almost. It is also a bit of a stalling game hoping they can find some chink in the armor of the 2A that they can exploit, or that one of the 5 justices who voted that the 2A means what it says can be replaced with someone who does not care.

 

In any case, these judges rule almost entirely based on case law and there just is no case directly on point to support any other decision that applies. You may not like it, but that is the way it is now. To get that changed we have to get cases into the system that will get favorable case law in place. Heller just started it. It may take dozens of SCOTUS decisions and hundreds of appeals court decisions to start to flush out what any of it means. The realistic answer is that even if it goes mostly our way the next 20 years, 20 years from now we may not be all that much farther along. The courts are just that slow to change.

 

It was almost 90 years after the 14th amendment was passed that we got any serious court involvement in the process of dealing with race issues, and that was becasue of the civil rights legislation passed by congress. Without that legislation, the courts would have continued to sit on their hands. Not that what we ended up with worked out all that well. We would almost certainly been much farther ahead if the legislatures of the various states had been given the time to work these things out in the political arena rather than enforcing all kinds of goofy crap against the states that mostly backfired. It seems doubtful that the courts will want to make such a huge blunder again.

 

We cannot depend on the courts to make any kind of rational decisions for us. History suggests that just does not go well. Gura rolled the dice in Heller for all of us, and now that it is started we have to press forward, no matter what. We have won twice. We will probably win a few more big ones. But sometimes we are going to lose in the courts. We are going to have to deal with a lot of things legislatively no matter what.

 

The thing is that we are winning in the political arena, at least for the most part. Its not 100%, but there is steady progress on almost all fronts. Every time a state passes the castle doctrine or improves LTC just a little bit it adds to that momentum. The other side has to see that as an oncoming train, and their occasional victories like in killing HB148 are not going to stop that tide. It redirects it a little, but the momentum is still there and even though it won't do us in Illinois any immediate good, it is a tidal wave that is still got a lot more energy left in it.