Jump to content

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


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

It's going to be hard to sleep tonight wondering about the decision at 9am.

Although many people are confident we will win, because that's the correct decision when you look at the facts, there's always the chance the court will simply say that Heller only applies to Hand Guns in the Home and punt this to a SCOTUS appeal. Hope that's not the case; I would bet we will win on 2nd Amendment grounds, but we shall see very soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-615 is a procedural issue that the judge did not have enough facts or a hearing to determine the facts and therefore should not have made the ruling on the briefs alone. He took all the Legislative findings as if they were fact and we never got a chance to put on a case or evidense, therfore the judge was out of bounds for making the ruling he did.

 

But the case got real interesting when the apeallate court went of on the 2A stuff twice. That opened up a real can of worms for them. So as Thomas said, they could go do a whole 2A analisys if they want to since the Appeallate court took off on all that stuff and interjected it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone want to take me up on a bet that this gets sent back to the trial court because the Cook County judge misapplied the 2-615 standards?

 

Only a fool would take that bet. Oh, wait, I see one already has.

 

Tim, a section 2-615 is a defendant's motion to dismiss that posits the plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts to ultimately prove defendant liable under the legal theory that been advanced. In other words, defendant is saying the plaintiff will be unable to prove his case so let's not waste anymore time. It's been called a drastic remedy and shouldn't allowed as the basis of a judgment until the plaintiff has had a chance to amend his complaint and it becomes clear he'll never be able to prove his case.

 

That's where the trial court went wrong here. Heller says there are some weapons that are protected under the second amendment. The trial judge didn't give plaintiffs a chance to prove what those might be. To me, it really is as simple as that.

 

Of course, I could be all wrong. Maybe the supreme court will say there's no way the plaintiffs can ever prove what Heller seems to require. But that's not the way the Illinois Supreme Court usually does things, so I wouldn't be betting against NakPPI on this one.

 

Watch yer topknot out there, fellers. Like I said, you got only yourself to protect your interests.

 

Oh, and I was initially interested in this case because I heard it might affect another case I'm involved in regarding home rule. But having thought further on it, I see it doesn't really. The first district was forced into the issue by its analysis. The Supremes won't have that problem and so probably won't even address home rule. Anyone want to take THAT bet?

 

Anyway, as we used to say in the old days, bien phun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tick tock tick tock.

 

I doubt the robed ones will accept or reject the 2A arguments. I think they will send it back down to the lower court for more litigation.

 

This case is a hallmark exhibit A of the gun prohibitionists nationwide, from Obama to Holder to Emmannuel to Finestien to Schumer to Clintons. This much bigger than the Diggins case as far as symbolism goes, and that is what this is about, not public safety.

 

A Win on 2A would be a "shot heard around the nation" (at least in CA NY NJ DC MA).

 

Tick tock...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilson v. County of Cook, 2012 IL 112026

 

Appellate citation: 407 Ill. App. 3d 759.

 

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

 

The Illinois Supreme Court held that a second amendment challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault weapons could proceed in circuit court and should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage for failure to state a cause of action. No trial has yet occurred. At issue is the constitutional validity of a Cook County ordinance enacted in 2006 and renamed the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban in 2007. Various plaintiffs opposed to the ordinance filed a preenforcement action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on their facial challenges to the ordinance’s constitutionality. It was claimed that the ordinance violates due process because of vagueness, denies equal protection, and is in violation of the right to bear arms, which is protected by the second amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal in 2011, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. In this decision, it was held that OP dismissal of the complaint counts alleging denial of due process and equal protection could stand, and the results reached in the courts below were upheld. However, as to the second amendment issue, the supreme court took a different view. At this early stage of the litigation, in the procedural posture of this case, it cannot be said conclusively whether “assault weapons” as defined by the ordinance fall within or outside the scope of the rights protected by the second amendment. This question requires an empirical inquiry that goes beyond the scope of both the record in the current litigation and judicial notice. The supreme court said that, at this point in the lawsuit, it cannot be said that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. Neither has the County had an opportunity to present evidence to justify a nexus between the ordinance and the governmental interest it seeks to protect. Therefore, the circuit court’s dismissal of the complaint count based on the second amendment was improper and was reversed, as was that part of the appellate court’s judgment which affirmed the dismissal. The cause was remanded to the circuit court of Cook County for further proceedings.

 

 

Is this what we've all been waiting for?

Will someone please translate all of this...

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...