769 replies to this topic

[Euler]

Pondering this case for a moment, I'm left with two questions.

• Is "semi-automatic" a feature? Or does its existence create an entirely different class of weapons?
• A bolt-action rifle is certainly a common firearm, but there are two conditions for self-defense, per the court: suitable and common. Is a bolt-action rifle suitable for self-defense?

The semi vs. bolt example above was my own, merely to illustrate the court's logic, but the court side-stepped arguments about specific features to focus on the more general concept of features. Should courts be determining how suitable a feature is for self-defense? That's a technical discussion they're unlikely to decide well, no matter how many amicus briefs they get supplying accurate facts.

The common law principle for the use of force has basically been "proportional to the threat and sufficient to overcome it." If criminals have semi-autos (and they will), is a bolt-action proportional to the threat and sufficient to overcome it, especially since criminals tend to work in teams against individual defenders?

[Flynn]

If criminals have semi-autos (and they will), is a bolt-action proportional to the threat and sufficient to overcome it, especially since criminals tend to work in teams against individual defenders?

 

I believe the fact that no modern day military or police force is still using bolt actions for general self defense definatively answers that question.

[InterestedBystander]

Chicago Tribune article on the decision

https://www.chicagot...sa6a-story.html

Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of lawsuit challenging Cook County’s assault weapons ban

A federal appeals court in Chicago on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged a ban on assault rifles in Cook County, saying the arguments were nearly identical to a previous failed suit brought against Highland Park.

In a 17-page ruling, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote the plaintiffs “have not come forward with a compelling reason to revisit our previous decision” in the Highland Park case, which set a legal precedent that was left in place when the Supreme Court refused to take up the issue in 2015.

The lawsuit filed by gun owners Troy Edhlund and Matthew Wilson contended that Cook County’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines was written so ambiguously that it could be broadly applied to almost any semi-automatic weapon, which is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In arguments before the 7th Circuit earlier this year, their attorneys said the lower court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of the Highland Park decision, especially given that the “type, magnitude and frequency” of criminal threats faced by the 5 million residents of Cook County are vastly different than those in the affluent North Shore suburb.

The three-judge appellate panel, however, said the Highland Park decision didn’t take crime rates into account at all.

“Our discussion of self-defense focused instead on the availability of other means for citizens to defend themselves,” stated the opinion by Judges Kenneth Ripple, David Hamilton and Amy St. Eve. “This is a question answered by the particular locality’s laws, not by its crime rates.”

The ruling marks the latest in a 12-year legal saga for Edhlund and Wilson, who first challenged the Cook County ban in 2007 in state court. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s dismissal in 2012.

The suit was refiled in federal court in 2017 but dismissed last year by U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, records show.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has turned decidedly more conservative since the high court declined to take up the Highland Park case four years ago.

At that time, two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, both said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban.

[mikew]

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.

[Euler]

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.

For an AWB challenge, though, I don't think this is the case to do it. Even with a favorable court, asking SCOTUS straight out if a feature ban is unconstitutional is unlikely to go our way.

I think a better question would be whether a feature ban of popular and common engineering improvements to firearms interferes unreasonably with an individual's right to keep and bear arms by requiring gun owners to possess only obsolete technology. This case isn't framed that way, but maybe different lawyers could reframe it for a SCOTUS appeal, if reframing is legitimate at this point.

It might be worth asking SCOTUS if "feeling safer" is a compelling government interest, since feelings are unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary, and should not form the justification of any laws, much less one potentially restricting a constitutionally protected civil liberty. I'm not sure this case is the one to do that, either, since I don't think a favorable decision on that question would necessarily change the outcome of the case overall.

As always, IANAL.

[skinnyb82]

This case asked CA7 to overturn itself in Friedman. "Materially indistinguishable" from Friedman v. Highland Park. That's why it's an unpublished, unsigned opinion. Didn't create any precedent, just followed current. The only way that will happen is to rehear en banc. That's the procedure for reversing circuit precedent. Otherwise it must go to SCOTUS. Depending on what SCOTUS does with NYSPRA, as in if it decides strict scrutiny is proper for 2A actions, then this will be vacated, remanded, and no possible way it will survive strict scrutiny. CA7 will have to reverse itself. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[domin8]

This was in my list of suggested news articles by Google this morning. It was at the very top. https://www.newsweek...es-guns-1456895 Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Capt_Destro]

This was in my list of suggested news articles by Google this morning. It was at the very top. https://www.newsweek...es-guns-1456895 Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

The comments man...

 

That Fox Free guy is a nut job.

[domin8]

I didn't get that far. I rarely read the comments. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Raw Power]

Horrible decision.

[2A4Cook]

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.

For an AWB challenge, though, I don't think this is the case to do it. Even with a favorable court, asking SCOTUS straight out if a feature ban is unconstitutional is unlikely to go our way.I think a better question would be whether a feature ban of popular and common engineering improvements to firearms interferes unreasonably with an individual's right to keep and bear arms by requiring gun owners to possess only obsolete technology. This case isn't framed that way, but maybe different lawyers could reframe it for a SCOTUS appeal, if reframing is legitimate at this point.It might be worth asking SCOTUS if "feeling safer" is a compelling government interest, since feelings are unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary, and should not form the justification of any laws, much less one potentially restricting a constitutionally protected civil liberty. I'm not sure this case is the one to do that, either, since I don't think a favorable decision on that question would necessarily change the outcome of the case overall.As always, IANAL.

Excellent! Right on the money! I think the lefties' most likely goal will be trying to amend the state constitution to restrict the scope of the state militia and to specify what is to be brought in the event of being called up to it. Get your Kentucky rifles ready, gentlemen!

Edited by 2A4Cook, 02 September 2019 - 08:10 AM.

[357]

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.

For an AWB challenge, though, I don't think this is the case to do it. Even with a favorable court, asking SCOTUS straight out if a feature ban is unconstitutional is unlikely to go our way.I think a better question would be whether a feature ban of popular and common engineering improvements to firearms interferes unreasonably with an individual's right to keep and bear arms by requiring gun owners to possess only obsolete technology. This case isn't framed that way, but maybe different lawyers could reframe it for a SCOTUS appeal, if reframing is legitimate at this point.It might be worth asking SCOTUS if "feeling safer" is a compelling government interest, since feelings are unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary, and should not form the justification of any laws, much less one potentially restricting a constitutionally protected civil liberty. I'm not sure this case is the one to do that, either, since I don't think a favorable decision on that question would necessarily change the outcome of the case overall.As always, IANAL.

It's a broad rifle ban using features as an excuse. Not a feature ban.

[Hap]

Sooner or later - and I'm betting it's going to be sooner - one of these cases will bubble up to SCOTUS, and, with the current composition of court, they'll grant cert and we will win. How much we win depends on whether RBG is still on the Court at that point. If she's still there, the ruling will be as narrow as possible. If not, it may be less narrow. But we'll get what we need.

 

I'll go just a little farther. What do we need? Most of all, we need some clarity on what the Heller "common use" test means and how it is to be applied. That would suffice for 2A purposes.

 

But we also need to put a stake in the heart of the insane emotion-based "reasoning" behind Friedman. Not just for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, but because allowing this sort of pandering to the fears of the ignorant to take root in our jurisprudence will ultimately destroy our justice system. If we can't kill this line of thought now, we will see a lot more of it, and not just in 2A cases.

[Euler]

In my mail today:

As expected, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against us on August 29th, 2019, in the Matthew Wilson, et al., v. Cook County, et al., court case.

This case dealt with Cook County’s ban on large capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms. The same court ruled in a similar fashion on the Friedman v. City of Highland Park case. Courts do not like to reverse themselves and so we are not surprised that the court ruled against us on the Matthew Wilson, et al., v. Cook County, et al., court case.

We will now appeal this case to the Supreme Court of the United States. If you recall, the McDonald case followed the same pattern.

This case, like others, may take a long time and will take substantial resources as well. If you are able, please consider contributing to our Legal Assistance Committee. Please go to our Legal Assistance Committee page and make a donation today.

[Davey]

SCOTUS won't touch this likely.  Especially with RBG still around.  

[Hap]

SCOTUS won't touch this likely.  Especially with RBG still around.  

I look forward to reading her dissent.

[Flynn]

SCOTUS won't touch this likely.  Especially with RBG still around.  

 

I believe that fully depends on the outcome of the NYSPRA case, if the conservative majority goes on record that the 2nd is a right subject to at minimum strict scrutiny then they have put that conservative majority between a rock and a hard place to continue to deny hearing obvious infringements against the 2nd.

[Frizzytryan]

People vs Webb, states that an outright ban is unconstitutional, simple because an item (tazer in this case) is readily available and very common in the marketplace. How does this ban hold up legally? This exact verbage is stated in Justice Burkes decision.

[cherryriver]

Should this ever, after several years, make it to the US Supreme Court, President Warren's two new justices will send it to a quick defeat.

Besides, relying on someone wearing a black robe to read and apply the law as written is a lost feature of a previous USA.

[JTHunter]

Should this ever, after several years, make it to the US Supreme Court, President Warren's two new justices will send it to a quick defeat.

Besides, relying on someone wearing a black robe to read and apply the law as written is a lost feature of a previous USA.

 

Bite your tongue !!