Jump to content

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


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

We all need to step back a minute and think about what this case is, and what it isn't.

This is not IllinoisCarry v Raoul, in which we get to choose counsel and can be swayed to choose someone else. This is not a civil case at all.

The case this thread has turned into is People v Brown, a criminal case in which a defendant's future freedom is at stake. That defendant has chosen who will represent her.

I can't express strongly enough how wrong headed it is to suggest that IC could somehow choose differently on Ms. Brown's behalf - that we should kick this around on the forum and come to a consensus on what she should do.

And I can't express strongly enough how inappropriate it is for anyone to try to undermine her defense knowing that could send her to jail. The primary purpose any attorney must accept in these circumstances is upholding defendant's acquital without regard to who might benefit or who will like it, other than their client.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

 

 

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.

 

That is a BOLD FACED LIE. I did NOT hang up on you. I told you to email me with whatever you had to say, and that I had to go (my ride was in the driveway). YOU did not answer me. I though YOU had hung up on me, and I'm not sure you didn't.

 

What I take exception too is no transparency. Many of us have paid memberships. Although this doesn't give us any right to be in on decisions you make, we should at least know what is going on.

 

I don't care what the NRA "wanted". I don't care who gets the accolades for winning this case. What I want is the best opportunity to win, and if that means the NRA comes in with their team and takes over the whole darn thing, then so be it.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

I don't care what the NRA "wanted". I don't care who gets the accolades for winning this case. What I want is the best opportunity to win, and if that means the NRA comes in with their team and takes over the whole darn thing, then so be it.

 

 

Maybe you should step back and consider what the defendant wants, and not what you or anyone else wants since the defendant is the one facing jail?

 

I get it we all want the best outcome for us collectively, but I don't believe for one second that gives us the authority to dictate the defending parties actions or choices for their defense, sure we can offer suggestions but in the end it's their choice to proceed as they feel fit even if it doesn't produce the outcome 'we' want.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

...

What I take exception too is no transparency. Many of us have paid memberships. Although this doesn't give us any right to be in on decisions you make, we should at least know what is going on.

 

I don't care what the NRA "wanted". I don't care who gets the accolades for winning this case. What I want is the best opportunity to win, and if that means the NRA comes in with their team and takes over the whole darn thing, then so be it.

You do not have a paid membership with Defendant Brown. You have no right to transparency into her decision making process.

 

Put her desires back into the mix, then think about what you just posted.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

 

...

What I take exception too is no transparency. Many of us have paid memberships. Although this doesn't give us any right to be in on decisions you make, we should at least know what is going on.

 

I don't care what the NRA "wanted". I don't care who gets the accolades for winning this case. What I want is the best opportunity to win, and if that means the NRA comes in with their team and takes over the whole darn thing, then so be it.

You do not have a paid membership with Defendant Brown. You have no right to transparency into her decision making process.

 

Put her desires back into the mix, then think about what you just posted.

 

I couldn't agree more. But there appears to more going on here than meets the eye. And I don't appreciate being LIED about (which you cut out of my quote). Valinda has said IC "helped" Brown with getting a new lawyer. We are told we dont' know what the NRA "wanted", yet no explanation what it was. If this is how you want to handle your business, it is certainly up to you.

 

But in the end, just what was it the NRA "wanted"?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

I didn't know about Mrs. Brown until afterwards. When I commented, it was how unprepared he sounded in the appeal. I don't have any opinion about Mrs. Brown making her own choice.

I know MF, and I mean MF in the nicest way :P

 

I bet if you think back to all the hearings you've listened to over the years you'll remember that it's frustrating - maddening at times. It's rarely an easy listen.

 

Unlike the expectations we sometimes get from the movies, there's never a mic drop at the end.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:32 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:32 PM - No reason given

We all need to step back a minute and think about what this case is, and what it isn't.This is not IllinoisCarry v Raoul, in which we get to choose counsel and can be swayed to choose someone else. This is not it a civil case at all.The case this thread has turned into is People v Brown, a criminal case in which a defendant's future freedom is at stake. That defendant has chosen who will represent her.I can't express strongly enough how wrong headed it is to suggest that IC could somehow choose differently on Ms. Brown's behalf - that we should kick this around on the forum and come to a consensus on what she should do.And I can't express strongly enough how inappropriate it is for anyone to try to undermine her defense knowing that could send her to jail. The primary purpose any attorney must accept in these circumstances is upholding defendant's acquital without regard to who might benefit or who will like it, other than their client.

^^^ This ^^^

 

And I’m not just being a brown noser. No pun intended.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

 

I know MF, and I mean MF in the nicest way :P I bet if you think back to all the hearings you've listened to over the years you'll remember that it's frustrating - maddening at times. It's rarely an easy listen. Unlike the expectations we sometimes get from the movies, there's never a mic drop at the end.
It's true that we sometimes get a result we didn't expect.
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

We all need to step back a minute and think about what this case is, and what it isn't.

This is not IllinoisCarry v Raoul, in which we get to choose counsel and can be swayed to choose someone else. This is not a civil case at all.

The case this thread has turned into is People v Brown, a criminal case in which a defendant's future freedom is at stake. That defendant has chosen who will represent her.

I can't express strongly enough how wrong headed it is to suggest that IC could somehow choose differently on Ms. Brown's behalf - that we should kick this around on the forum and come to a consensus on what she should do.

And I can't express strongly enough how inappropriate it is for anyone to try to undermine her defense knowing that could send her to jail. The primary purpose any attorney must accept in these circumstances is upholding defendant's acquital without regard to who might benefit or who will like it, other than their client.

Someone speaking on behalf of the NRA contacted Ms. Brown with an offer of legal representation before we ever met her. Ms.Brown declined that offer. That is her prerogative and hers alone. The detractors are conveniently ignoring this fact.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
I didn't think the orals sounded like anything other than the 7th CA was waiting to kick someone in the teeth over a 2A issue. It doesn't have anything to do with what they'll decide.
Sigale was off his game. Seriously off his game. I've never heard such an experienced appellate attorney fumble that much during arguments. I did listen to "toxic tort litigator" Maag argue the Horsley case but he was way out of his area of expertise or we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this FOID issue.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

I'm officially lost here... are we talking about Wilson or Brown? Maybe some of this should be split off into a new thread?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

 

Thread title says Wilson

Brown is here: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71543

 

I'm REALLY confused now... (Even more than usual.)

David Sigale is the ISRA's general counsel. He is presenting in the Cook case. He is also planned on being used in the Brown case of which there is disagreement over him being the best choice. Hence the blurring between the two cases in this discussion.
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, April 6, 2019 at 08:29 PM - No reason given

David Sigale is the ISRA's general counsel. He is presenting in the Cook case. He is also planned on being used in the Brown case of which there is disagreement over him being the best choice. Hence the blurring between the two cases in this discussion.

Subject to the caveat that Ms. Brown has no questions about the choice she made, her opinion being the only one that maters.

 

This is more about folks who think they have a right to be in everyone's business getting unduly upset..

Link to comment

So, what happened to the several dozen posts in this thread that I got alerts for, going back to late last month?

 

I click on the notification and it goes here, but all of the posts but Davey's last two are gone.

 

Something problematic happen in the past few days to warrant that complete whitewashing deletion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Decision 8/29.

 

full pdf...

 

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D08-29/C:18-2686:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2391208:S:0

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:17-cv-07002 Manish S. Shah, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED APRIL 4, 2019 DECIDED AUGUST 29, 2019

 

...PER CURIAM. Two Cook County residents appeal the

dismissal of their complaint, which raises a Second Amend-

ment challenge to Cook Countys ban on assault rifles and

large-capacity magazines. Less than five years ago, we up-

held a materially indistinguishable ordinance against a Second Amendment challenge. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). The district court dismissed the plaintiffs complaint on the basis of Friedman. We agree with the district court that Friedman is controlling. Because the plaintiffs have not come forward with a compelling reason to revisit our previous decision, we affirm the judgment of the district court....

 

...Conclusion

As the Court did in Heller, it is important to note the limitations of our holding. We answer only the two questions presented by the appellants: should the district court have given the plaintiffs an opportunity to develop a factual record on which to distinguish Friedman, and should we revisit our holding in Friedman. Our answer to both questions is no. Our holding in Friedman did not depend upon the kinds of facts that the plaintiffs seek to gather, and the plaintiffs have come forward with no reasonmuch less a compelling onefor us to revisit Friedman. We do not establish here a comprehensive approach to Second Amendment challenges, and we leave for other cases further development and refinement of standards in this emerging area of the law. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) is affirmed. The defendants may recover their costs in this court.

AFFIRMED...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't come up with any new arguments then precedent stands. Regardless of how ugly it is. Unless the court wants to revisit that and AWBs are all the rage now so judges best duck and cover or something. Let's hope this (and Friedman) gets vacated in light of NYSPRA...if that comes out "our way." File a cert petition and hope they hold it.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court's reasoning worked like this:

 

Is possessing certain features on a firearm protected by the 2nd Amendment in the first place?

 

If not, does prohibiting those features prevent law-abiding citizens from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for self-defense?

 

The court says features are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, only whole arms, and that prohibiting features does not prevent people from owning arms commonly used for self-defense. Establishing the commonality of the banned features was irrelevant to the case. As long as there are some commonly used weapons that are not restricted, it's okay to restrict other weapons, even if they're commonly used.

 

So, for (my) example, it doesn't matter that a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip is common, because a bolt-action rifle with a legacy stock is also common and not restricted.

 

In the middle of it all, the court also re-affirmed that making people feel safer is a compelling government interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...