782 replies to this topic

[Howard Roark]

Why would the bolt need removing?

Something about being illegal to posess in Cook County. Perhaps there is an exception if it is a non-functional firearm.

[Howard Roark]

It was in the possession of the manufacturer, Mr. Mark Westrom. It was legal.

Yes, I sort of assumed it was done legally, just wasn't sure whether legality was achieved by rendering it in-operable or by some other exception in the Cook County ordinance.

[Talonap]

Has anyone heard any more about this case since Sept?

[Tvandermyde]

Response brief was due Nov. 18th.

Court’s Order granting the Motion for appearances pro hac vice of Brady center counsel

several amici filings

[Talonap]

Thanks Todd! Good to know it's not just sitting around stagnating. I was waiting for the Bradys to get their noses into it.

Edited by Talonap, 22 November 2011 - 07:31 AM.

[GarandFan]

I know that the Brady Center and Brady Campaign are two somewhat different organizations ... but I must say that I've heard relatively little out of the Brady Center over the past few months. I suspect it's possible that more of their resources are going into fighting these myriad gun control court cases.

[Federal Farmer]

Response brief was due Nov. 18th.

Court’s Order granting the Motion for appearances pro hac vice of Brady center counsel

several amici filings

Despite what you'd think, "pro hac" is not short for "Professional Hack".

[Tvandermyde]

I'm hearing that Brady is in, so is LCAV and the inflatables. Chicago has filed for a brief.

Now I am chasing down the ghosts, but one report has Cook County asking for another extension. And the amici wanting an extension beyond that.

Either they are incompotent, lazy, understaffed or trying to drag this out or all of the above.

We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice.

We will just have to wait and see.

[abolt243]

I'm hearing that Brady is in, so is LCAV and the inflatables. Chicago has filed for a brief.

Now I am chasing down the ghosts, but one report has Cook County asking for another extension. And the amici wanting an extension beyond that.

Either they are incompotent, lazy, understaffed or trying to drag this out or all of the above.

We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice.

We will just have to wait and see.

And work our butts off to make sure that Obama doesn't get a chance to replace any of the five!!

[GarandFan]

We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice.

Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated.

That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances).

[Federal Farmer]

We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice.

Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated.

That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances).

Just need a leaked email or memo...

[scough]

We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice.

Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated.

That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances).

Just need a leaked email or memo...

Where's Wikileaks when you need 'em?

[chicago guy]

On a different, but related note -- The Joyce Foundation is the major funder of all these groups. During Beatrice Joyce's life the Foundation was never involved in anti second amendment activities. With a Self-perpetuating board there is no check on how they can decide to spend the money. I wonder if a court could find that these activities are not what she intended. It is rare, I think, for a court to "reform a trust" but it has been done. At least the publicity might slow them down a bit. Do we have any legal scholars who could persue this line of reasoning?

Just a thought.

[abolt243]

We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice.

Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated.

That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances).

As I've watched this whole issue for the last 4-5 years, it's become very clear to me that Chicago politicians don't give two ***ts about the constitution. State or Federal. They truly don't think that any laws; moral, civil, criminal, local, state or Federal apply to them at all. They are "special" and their little world is so unique that it can't be bound or bothered by any laws except those that they write.

I'm at a loss for words to describe my feelings about this.

I guess I'm not really at a loss, it's just that if I use the ones that I'm thinking right now, I'd probably be banned.

AB

Edited by abolt243, 22 November 2011 - 02:22 PM.
"not at a loss"

[colt-45]

leak it to the press, what there strategy is and see what happens.

[Sigma]

wait til obama wins then wait til a justice retires then hope the Senate approves the nomination then proceed with the case?

What a bunch of idiots.

[Tvandermyde]

here is the County's brief.

Our side has filed a motion extending time our time to respond to 12/16.

Attached Files

•  Wilson_Def\'s_Response_Brief_(Rd_#_2)_Supreme_Ctt.pdf   4.8MB   317 downloads

[Talonap]

Hope our side goes with the, "Dangerous or Unusual", or, "Not in Common Use", weapons they mention in this brief. Should be able to show that neither of these arguments are true. Wonder how many AR types people own?

Edited by Talonap, 24 November 2011 - 01:22 PM.

[GarandFan]

Thanks Todd. Reading those arguments as a whole ... it seems (to me at least) that this one is Wilson's to lose. The County's pivotal arguments are either easily refuted (semiautos aren't "dangerous" and certainly not unusual), or easily cast into much doubt (regarding how well they further a substantial governmental interest).

In terms of determining efficacy of the county's gun ban, I truly hope that some of the fact-finding in this case will point to how effectively the county's ban has been enforced since 1993. I suspect that would be very telling, in terms of illuminating how necessary said law truly is to the county's interests.

That said, am I correct in that a loss at the IL Supreme Court would allow Wilson to appeal directly to SCOTUS?

[Druid]

That said, am I correct in that a loss at the IL Supreme Court would allow Wilson to appeal directly to SCOTUS?

That's correct.

[Druid]

FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there.

[Federal Farmer]

FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there.

We'll be with you in spirit!

[Sigma]

what do you all think the outcome will be

[Federal Farmer]

what do you all think the outcome will be

I'm about 66% confident Wilson will prevail.

[Druid]

what do you all think the outcome will be

This case has been going on for so very long, I have a hard time imagining its conclusion anytime soon.

[TFC]

The judge is in a bind. The Chicago machine wants one thing, the Constitution demands another.
Do what the law demands, then become a political pariah. Do what the machine wants; find yourself stuck at the same level for the rest of his/her career.... (no chance at supreme court.)

[Molly B.]

FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there.

In Springfield? That surprises me. I just thought with Cook Co. being involved it would have to be in the northern district court.

Edited by Molly B., 21 December 2011 - 03:56 PM.

[Federal Farmer]

FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there.

In Springfield? That surprises me. I just thought with Cook Co. being involved it would have to be in the northern district court.

It's the IL Supreme Court.

[Molly B.]

It's the IL Supreme Court.

Where's the "face palm" smiley?

[Howard Roark]

It's the IL Supreme Court.

Where's the "face palm" smiley?

funny transition here on the face palm! all good !

David's estimate of 66 pct for us is probably right. I wish it was 100 percent.

See ya'll soon.