Jump to content

Coalition for Safe Chicago Communities et al v Riverdale, Lyons, & Lincolnwood


Recommended Posts

Perhaps this should be a reminder, Sec. 90. Preemption. The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or handguns and ammunition for handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From page 5:

 

22. Unlike California or New York, Illinois does not license and regulate gun dealers operating in the state, but leaves it up to local municipalities like the defendant villages.

 

Deliberately makes it sound like the gun dealers are operating totally free and clear of regs, ignoring the fact that they are licensed by the Feds.

 

Why am I not surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't wait for this one to crash, burn, slide down an embankment through a fireworks factory, off a cliff, down a jagged rock face, into a raging rock riddled river, over a three hundred foot waterfall, down a waterway straight into the nearest military ordnance testing range.

 

I could go on but I'm trying to remain reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What a stretch of the specific statute cited.

 

2) Race-baiting, really? Tell me how these issues don't affect the whites, hispanics, etc in those communities.

 

3) Looks like an attempt to obtain legislation from the bench. Let's hope the judge is smart enough to see this for what it is.

 

4) Don't take it lightly. Our side needs to respond with something like an Amicus. They're going after the municipal governments because they know the gun stores would be backed and supported by ISRA/NRA, etc.

 

5) Have the plaintiffs attempted to get these municipalities to adopt their requests in the lawsuit prior to filing the suit? If not, it should be pointed out in a response.

 

6) Watch out for Brady to jump into this too. Since race-baiting is occurring, watch out for Rainbow Push Coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha...

 

"the defendants Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood have lax or insufficient “methods of administration” in licensing or regulating gun dealers, and they fail to use the kind of recommended by the City of Chicago, so as to ensure that guns purchased at stores in their jurisdictions do not end in possession of illegal users and minors and gang members."

 

Because Chicago has so many gun stores....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone ever just get sick of the idiocy the other side spews/attempts?

 

-Can't even a handle/rent a gun in Cook County unless you are 21.

-Cook County has a $75 tax on each firearm.

-The guys at Midwest know me, but still won't let me handle a gun unless I show my FOID. They are very strict about this policy.

-Handguns have a 72 hour wait, Long-Guns are a 24 hour wait.

-Background checks needed for every firearm purchase.

-FOID card obviously needed for purchase of firearms and ammo.

 

What more does father phlegm want? Midwest appears to do everything by the books as far as state/federal laws are concerned.

IMO certain relatives of your "flock" are the problem. Blaming a gun store because your neighborhood is a war zone, is nothing but idiotic. Why wouldn't people want to leave areas like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will follow the pattern of past Rainbow PUSH Coalition legal actions?

 

The tactic is to file an outrageous lawsuit thereby garnering free press coverage, and then just let the lawsuit languish by not moving forward with it until finally a judge dismisses it.

 

You don't have to pay a lawyer all that much to just file a suit, and it more than pays for itself in free press coverage.

 

You do have to pay attorneys quite a bit of money to actually try a case, and as Phillips et al. v. Lucky Gunner LLC (Brady Campaign v Lucky Gunner) has recently shown, pursuing a case to its conclusion can be triply expensive if the anti-gunners lose, There is their legal costs, the defendant's legal cost and the humiliating defeat of being repudiated publicly in a court of law - a PR loss that is hard to quantify with dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will follow the pattern of past Rainbow PUSH Coalition legal actions?

 

The tactic is to file an outrageous lawsuit thereby garnering free press coverage, and then just let the lawsuit languish by not moving forward with it until finally a judge dismisses it.

 

You don't have to pay a lawyer all that much to just file a suit, and it more than pays for itself in free press coverage.

 

You do have to pay attorneys quite a bit of money to actually try a case, and as Phillips et al. v. Lucky Gunner LLC (Brady Campaign v Lucky Gunner) has recently shown, pursuing a case to its conclusion can be triply expensive if the anti-gunners lose, There is their legal costs, the defendant's legal cost and the humiliating defeat of being repudiated publicly in a court of law - a PR loss that is hard to quantify with dollars.

The risk of using the rainbow push coalition to continually file lawsuits is the risk of being sued by those that you sue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do the plaintiffs rationalize that stricter regulations or even shutting down the shops would have any measurable affect on violence given their complaint cites that not even 20% of guns recovered are allegedly traced to the shops listed? What about the other eighty plus percent? What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 80% of guns recovered at crime scenes do not come from lagitimate businesses immediately outside Chicago.

But they've decided to attack the businesses where "20%" of the guns come from?

Would seem their really not interested in a solution to the problem. They disregard 80% of the problem and throw all sorts of time and money to try and "snuff out" the 20%

It's pretty clear that their agenda isn't to stop criminal activity, they want to stop our lawful activity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's much easier than blaming the gangbangers

 

 

This week we have seen Superintendent Garry McCarthy get very close to blaming gang-member Antonio Brown for the death of his son 7-year old Amari Brown.

 

You have to remember that many times the police don't release all the details, and the press often doesn't print the details that tell the whole story - they just craft a narrative that pushes their agenda, ie: another child gunned down in Chicago.

 

What they didn't leave out this time was the fact that the father had been arrested 45 times.

 

Also we heard Garry McCarthy get very close to blaming Illinois law that allows a convicted felon to post $5,000 bond and be back on the street 5 days after being arrested for weapons possession.

 

Blaming gangs is easy to do, but the sacred cow of issues that cannot be broached is the social policies that have brought this about. We have the 22 Trillion dollar cost of "The War on Poverty" that hasn't reduced poverty and has given rise to a feral counter-culture. The real benefactors of the war on poverty are the politicians who have controlled the purse strings of these anti-poverty programs. Their campaign coffers mysteriously fill up while they pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to cronies who sit on the boards of these "community" organizations. All sorts of programs to give stuff to poor people that made politicians and some group or another rich. The Lifeline assistance program has put money in the pockets of cell-phone manufacturers and phone companies and they in turn have put money into the campaign coffers of politicians who supported it.

 

Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin presented a 7-point plan to "reduce gun violence" One of his points was to offer parenting classes for people in afflicted neighborhoods. That is about as close as anyone is ever going to come to addressing the culture issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin presented a 7-point plan to "reduce gun violence" One of his points was to offer parenting classes for people in afflicted neighborhoods. That is about as close as anyone is ever going to come to addressing the culture issue.

 

 

Anyone old enough to recall a high school class called "Home economics"?

Pretty sure it is no longer PC to expect youth to learn basic domestic skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those with a taste for irony will enjoy knowing that Steven Elrod, attorney for Highland Park and a force behind its illegal gun laws, is also attorney for Lincolnwood and has issued this statement in defense of his client:

 

 

“While we certainly appreciate the concerns that they raise, we cannot see any conceivable basis for liability on the part of the village of Lincolnwood,” Elrod said.

 

Source: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/751389/suburbs-face-lawsuit-seeking-tougher-regulation-gun-shops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will follow the pattern of past Rainbow PUSH Coalition legal actions?

 

The tactic is to file an outrageous lawsuit thereby garnering free press coverage, and then just let the lawsuit languish by not moving forward with it until finally a judge dismisses it.

 

You don't have to pay a lawyer all that much to just file a suit, and it more than pays for itself in free press coverage.

 

You do have to pay attorneys quite a bit of money to actually try a case, and as Phillips et al. v. Lucky Gunner LLC (Brady Campaign v Lucky Gunner) has recently shown, pursuing a case to its conclusion can be triply expensive if the anti-gunners lose, There is their legal costs, the defendant's legal cost and the humiliating defeat of being repudiated publicly in a court of law - a PR loss that is hard to quantify with dollars.

 

I guess it depends on who is really funding this lawsuit. Somehow I don't think it's Sir Snuffy or His Jessiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...