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

[Mr. Fife]

I heard the judge call his name, not sure if I spelled it right.

[Hipshot Percussion]

I've heard this is the lawyer IC is using on the FOID case. SAF suggested Seagle, who is general council with the ISRA. Also heard that the NRA wanted to put their legal team, several of which worked on the California mag ban, on the FOID case and were turned down by IC and ISRA. If this is the guy we are trusting the FOID case too, I'm not real confident we have a winner here.

[Colt guy]

I've heard this is the lawyer IC is using on the FOID case. SAF suggested Seagle, who is general council with the ISRA. Also heard that the NRA wanted to put their legal team, several of which worked on the California mag ban, on the FOID case and were turned down by IC and ISRA. If this is the guy we are trusting the FOID case too, I'm not real confident we have a winner here.

Why would we not accept all the help we can get ? There must be a reason

[Euler]

 

I've heard this is the lawyer IC is using on the FOID case. SAF suggested Seagle, who is general council with the ISRA. Also heard that the NRA wanted to put their legal team, several of which worked on the California mag ban, on the FOID case and were turned down by IC and ISRA.

Why would we not accept all the help we can get ? There must be a reason

 

The NRA has a way of torpedoing their own cases. Alan Gura (the lawyer for the GOA) described them as "sham litigators" in the Heller and McDonald cases, suggesting they have a national strategy which does not necessarily involve winning cases, so he declined their "help." Perhaps the ISRA and IC have similar concerns.

[TRJ]

While I remain a member of NRA because they remain the 800# gorilla, I haven't agreed with their leadership for a long time. It's become obvious that they don't want to resolve gun rights issues just like the national Republican party doesn't want to. It would take away a polarizing topic from them to collect money and votes. Every time a tragedy happens, or right before an election the email\mail starts with the familiar scaremongering that I need to vote or pay up. I vote anyway and I donate generously...but not because I was fear-managed into doing it. Trusting NRA to identify problem political contests and fund right-minded politics is what they remain good for. Other than that they might tend towards not having real incentive to actually win rights back because it harms their bottom line in the long run.

[Mr. Fife]

He seemed unprepared to answer simple questions about how an AR could be a better choice for home protection for some people, or how round penetration works.

[rmart]

I wasn't able to listen to the whole thing last night but it sounded to me like the arguments should've been about infringement rather than the efficacy of the AR in home defense...

You're right, he didn't sound like he was well versed on the subject at all.

[Molly B.]

 

I've heard this is the lawyer IC is using on the FOID case. SAF suggested Seagle, who is general council with the ISRA. Also heard that the NRA wanted to put their legal team, several of which worked on the California mag ban, on the FOID case and were turned down by IC and ISRA. If this is the guy we are trusting the FOID case too, I'm not real confident we have a winner here.

Why would we not accept all the help we can get ? There must be a reason

 

SAF has been in communication with other attorneys and has welcomed their input. Not everything you read on the internet is true.

[Theodolite]

Is that Friedman case they keep talking about the other assault weapon ban the NRA lost so bad a few years ago?

[TRJ]

Is that Friedman case they keep talking about the other assault weapon ban the NRA lost so bad a few years ago?

I don't know about the NRA losing Friedman, but Friedman was the Highland Park ban. That ruling was based on feelings, not upon any rational attempt at observing precedent or required scrutiny.

[Hap]

 

Is that Friedman case they keep talking about the other assault weapon ban the NRA lost so bad a few years ago?

I don't know about the NRA losing Friedman, but Friedman was the Highland Park ban. That ruling was based on feelings, not upon any rational attempt at observing precedent or required scrutiny.

 

This point is extremely important and is one of the reasons I was surprised the Supreme Court did not grant cert in Friedman. The 7th Circuit's reasoning was that it simply did not matter whether the Highland Park ordinance actually had any effect on public safety as long as people felt that it might do so. In the strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny/rational basis ladder of judicial screening, the 7th Circuit fell right off the bottom rung into something that can only be called "irrational basis" - or, better, just plain crazy thinking. Independently of any 2A issues, that SCOTUS would let this sort of deranged approach to jurisprudence stand is more than a little scary.

 

To hammer this home, the only other decision I can think of that is this badly thought out was the one upholding FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans on the west coast during WWII. There was no reason (i.e. no "rational basis") to think that these people, as a group, posed any particular danger. But if non-Japanese west coasters were nervous, hey, ship 'em off to the camps. Wrong then, wrong now, time to drive a stake through the heart of this twisted logic.

[gearsmithy]

 

 

I've heard this is the lawyer IC is using on the FOID case. SAF suggested Seagle, who is general council with the ISRA. Also heard that the NRA wanted to put their legal team, several of which worked on the California mag ban, on the FOID case and were turned down by IC and ISRA. If this is the guy we are trusting the FOID case too, I'm not real confident we have a winner here.

Why would we not accept all the help we can get ? There must be a reason

 

SAF has been in communication with other attorneys and has welcomed their input. Not everything you read on the internet is true.

 

 

What about this^^? I read that on the internet

[Hipshot Percussion]

 

 

I've heard this is the lawyer IC is using on the FOID case. SAF suggested Seagle, who is general council with the ISRA. Also heard that the NRA wanted to put their legal team, several of which worked on the California mag ban, on the FOID case and were turned down by IC and ISRA. If this is the guy we are trusting the FOID case too, I'm not real confident we have a winner here.

Why would we not accept all the help we can get ? There must be a reason

 

SAF has been in communication with other attorneys and has welcomed their input. Not everything you read on the internet is true.

 

I didn't "hear this on the internet." I heard this straight from TV. And as far as TV is concerned, why are you blocking his posts? I've never known him to lie to us about anything, and he has more to say on this subject. I've kicked in money to this defense case so I've got skin in the game.

[mauserme]

I didn't "hear this on the internet." I heard this straight from TV. And as far as TV is concerned, why are you blocking his posts? I've never known him to lie to us about anything, and he has more to say on this subject. I've kicked in money to this defense case so I've got skin in the game.

If you're looking to cast blame, put it squarely on my shoulders.

 

If you're hoping to understand, I'd be happy to discuss it with you privately.

[Molly B.]

Mr. V has been under post moderation for quite sometime because of crap like this and posting while under the influence. No one, NO ONE, is above the rules. If I explained in an open forum what the NRA tried to do here you would be very, very shocked. If you would like a refund of your donation, we can do that in a heart beat, sir.

[Molly B.]

 

If you're hoping to understand, I'd be happy to discuss it with you privately.

 

 

 

I tried that this morning but he had to go play golf and hung up on me.

[mauserme]

 

If you're hoping to understand, I'd be happy to discuss it with you privately.

 

I tried that this morning but he had to go play golf and hung up on me.

 

I wish old agendas could be left behind so we can move forward with advancing our rights.

[Theodolite]

Anyone remember this https://www.cato.org/blog/nra-cares-more-about-nra-gun-rights-liberty-professional-courtesy

[Bird76Mojo]

 

 

 

Why would we not accept all the help we can get ? There must be a reason

 

SAF has been in communication with other attorneys and has welcomed their input. Not everything you read on the internet is true.

 

I didn't "hear this on the internet." I heard this straight from TV. And as far as TV is concerned, why are you blocking his posts? I've never known him to lie to us about anything, and he has more to say on this subject. I've kicked in money to this defense case so I've got skin in the game.

 

Get used to being censored, or seeing others being censored, on internet forums like this. True freedom of speech doesn't exist in online forums.

[Mr. Fife]

I wouldn't mind hearing all sides of this. It feels like there's more than meets the eye here. I've heard this lawyer before and he seemed competent, but he obviously didn't bring his "A" game this time.

 

If there's more to the story, let's lay it all out and discuss it as a group like we do with all the other 2A issues.

[mauserme]

I wouldn't mind hearing all sides of this. It feels like there's more than meets the eye here. I've heard this lawyer before and he seemed competent, but he obviously didn't bring his "A" game this time. If there's more to the story, let's lay it all out and discuss it as a group like we do with all the other 2A issues.

There's an ongoing Facebook discussion you could check out.

[Mr. Fife]

Yeah I don't do Facebook. Can I see it without an account?

[mauserme]

Yeah I don't do Facebook. Can I see it without an account?

I don't know. Give it a try.

 

Otherwise you can sign up for free.

[Mr. Fife]

Looks like not.

[Bird76Mojo]

Facebook posts can often be seen without an account IF the poster doesn't have it marked as private or friends only.. But you have to have the link.

[Mr. Fife]

Couldn't see the link, but was surprised to learn about yesterday's 5 year anniversary of losing Otis McDonald. Time flies.

[Molly B.]

To clarify, Ms. Brown was contacted by someone presenting the NRA before we ever had any contact with her. She turned down the NRA offer of representation.

[THE KING]

All I can say is that we need to work together for the same cause. I do know Todd and know that he calls it the way he sees it. I think it's sad that he's not able to post because his opinion and comments cause people here to get butt hurt.

 

I also think it's not appropriate that the moderators here censor his private messages with other members on this forum.

 

If the lawyer that is going to represent Ms. Brown can't do a better job than his previous arguments in the Wilson case. Then this case will be LOST.

 

Ms. Brown's case challenging the FOID act could be monumental for the people of this state and needs to be argued by the best representation possible. If that means we get help from the NRA then so be it.

 

We need to put our differences aside and work together Equally.

 

This is my 2 cents, take it for what it is worth. And I am not going to discuss this any further.

 

KING

[mrmagloo]

I really don't want to get into the back door turf wars, which I don't have any privy to, but it's a real shame that these various organizations cannot put bygones and ego's to the side for the common good. At some point, someone has to recognize these internal battles are preventing us from putting on the best possible collaborative legal planning, strategy, and execution - Across all relevant concurrent and future cases to ensure that the arguments and logic dovetails the overall strategy. It sucks that one long ranger has the ability to cause such great harm because he/she put themselves first, instead of being part of a team.

 

All I can say is, after listening to this audio, it was painful to see how unprepared Siegal was. Clearly, they dismissed many of his arguments that were far from well thought out. I wouldn't let this guy represent me in traffic court.

[Mr. Fife]

So I got a chance to review the Facebook comments, not seeing much difference there from what I thought when I heard the tape. You don't have to be under the influence to listen and determine that the lawyer was unprepared. Now I need a drink myself lol.