Jump to content

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


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

Good morning Howard, what we are allowed to do and not, will be decided by the Appellate Court Justices at this point... there may not even allow oral arguments... I'm not an attorney either, but from what I understand it is very unusual to have the court allow briefs and then not allow responses from the opposition, but that is what they have done at this juncture in this case. (Of course, by amending their brief, the Defendants were able to rebutt some of our arguments;))

 

So, the question is, would we be allowed discovery to try and find out if their "error" was intentional? My answer would be that anyone can file a complaint with the ethics committee of the Illinois Bar when they see something they feel deserves it. I know there are probably quiet a few people that may have that impression around here... the time limits for such complaints are very lenient and I'd ask that if anyone were interested in doing such a thing, to wait until the Appelate Court has ruled.

 

Thanks to all that have welcomed me here. This seems to be a very nice community and I'll try and post occasionally as my time allows and issues arise

.

Thanks,

 

Don Moran

 

Mr. Moran, thanks for your kind words. Will the plaintiffs in this case be able to perform discovery to determine whether the direct mis-quotations of the Supreme Court Heller decision were intentional?

 

I'm not a lawyer yet I can see that the direct quotation of Heller on page 1 of Anita Alverez's States Attorney Office brief missing from the United States Supreme Court's Heller case. Much worse is the fact that the entire argument presented in Cook County's brief is based on that false quote.

 

I'm sure you agree that The Illinois Bar Association is probably interested to know if lawyers knowingly lie in court. Shouldn't the court allow discovery interviews of Anita's office to ameliorate the harm already done to our side in this case?

 

P.S. Please accept this small gift of appreciation for your fine work with the ISRA. This non-copyrighted, improved version of your likeness is presented to you for any Seasonal purpose you see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the question is, would we be allowed discovery to try and find out if their "error" was intentional? My answer would be that anyone can file a complaint with the ethics committee of the Illinois Bar when they see something they feel deserves it. I know there are probably quiet a few people that may have that impression around here... the time limits for such complaints are very lenient and I'd ask that if anyone were interested in doing such a thing, to wait until the Appelate Court has ruled.

 

Thanks,

 

Don Moran

 

 

Don,

 

When the time comes that you determine that complaints need to be filed, please let us know. The members of this community have become quite adept at contacting legislators regarding pending legistlation. I would guess that we could channel that expertise towards the Ethic Committee of the Illinois Bar Association if it would benefit the cause.

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I think it's clear from the new Appellate decision that the justices didn't even bother to read our brief. They basically just re-wrote their old opinion and threw in a few more things about Heller and McDonald. They talk about old arguments that were not even made in our brief, such as claiming the ordinance to be "vague or overbroad". They also seem to accept the fabricated quotation of the Federal Supreme Court about "common handguns", and equate so called assault weapons with automatic machine guns, falsely claiming them be "rapid fire".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's clear from the new Appellate decision that the justices didn't even bother to read our brief. They basically just re-wrote their old opinion and threw in a few more things about Heller and McDonald. They talk about old arguments that were not even made in our brief, such as claiming the ordinance to be "vague or overbroad". They also seem to accept the fabricated quotation of the Federal Supreme Court about "common handguns", and equate so called assault weapons with automatic machine guns, falsely claiming them be "rapid fire".

 

If this is true ... and my initial reading of it would concur ... a good lawyer would (or should) be able to thoroughly thrash this current opinion on appeal to the IL Supreme Court. Not only did their analysis seriously lack substance (how on earth can you rule that semiauto guns with detachable magazines are not in common use for lawful purposes?), but since both decisions contain so much overlap, and apparently issues in the new brief weren't discussed, they appear to have been negligent in doing their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I was reading the heller again and maybe because im bias but i dont see how they think they can get away with this.

my understanding is simple. its a modern firearm and you can ban an entire class of firearm.

 

They're in Illinois... Orland Park does the same thing. They also have ammo registration from what I understand here:

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ordinances/orlandpark.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have been keeping an eye on it for some time now trying to get new information. I have found nothing.

 

It boggles my mind that in one bill you can compare an AR15 or Ak47 to a 10/22...

 

It just shows how ignorant and stupid the legislatures in this county are.

 

I mean honestly... I can follow the logic of AR15's and AK47s being in a group of assault weapons. I think its wrong, but the two share similarities.

 

But putting a 10/22 in that category...? Shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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