TFC Posted December 13, 2012 at 04:12 AM Share Posted December 13, 2012 at 04:12 AM Maybe this may be covered in some way in the CCW bill? Or not...... They will probably try to trade a ban for CC. They can try, but it will fail.And the courts have affirmed that they can regulate a class of weapons, but not ban them.If that regulation becomes so onerous that it has the effect of a ban, then it will be struck down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted December 13, 2012 at 05:01 AM Share Posted December 13, 2012 at 05:01 AM I am so sick of this "assault" WB crap. The entire mindset of the political left sucks and stupid!! You can sell and have a soda drink that is 15.5 ounces, but how frickin dare you try and sell one 16 ounces!! You can have a rifle, but don't you dare have one that has a telescoping stock!! Handgun (personal protection device), it can have 9 shots, but 10, or 11 - what are you a terrorist? Where the Frick is the "common" sense on the left??? Love the Country - Hate the current Government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmikex Posted January 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 12:38 PM Where are we at on this? It's been over 9 months since it got bumped back, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted January 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM Where are we at on this? It's been over 9 months since it got bumped back, right? Waiting for new oral arguments based on second amendment implications. The most recent judges pussed out and kicked it back down. Another case of "wah, my job is hard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmikex Posted January 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 12:57 PM Which judges wimped out? ILSC? Shouldn't there be a hearing scheduled soon-ish at the appellate level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NakPPI Posted January 11, 2013 at 01:30 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 01:30 PM The Illinois supreme court kicked the case back to the circuit court because the case was improperly dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 of the code of civil procedure. Fancy lawyer talk for the circuit court didn't follow the rules, so the supreme court never addressed the substantive 2a issues. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted January 11, 2013 at 01:50 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 01:50 PM TOOD!!!!! MOLLY!!!!! HELP!!!!!! I've been waiting on this too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmikex Posted January 11, 2013 at 01:52 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 01:52 PM So what's a realistic timeline for action at the circuit court? Does the case have to have a new hearing? Are any dates set? After the circuit rules, it would then go back to the ILSC? And from there up to SCOTUS? I guess the reason I'm so interested is due to all the AWB talk. Is this the AWB case that will go to the SCOTUS or will it be another AWB that's being opposed and what's the general timeline for one if the AWB cases making it to SCOTUS. Or is the current legal focus on CCW and not really going after the AWB stuff? If any answers would compromise our side, Then just say so and I don't need to know. I'll just keep lighting votive candles and contacting elected officials as always. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted January 11, 2013 at 02:14 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 02:14 PM TOOD!!!!! MOLLY!!!!! HELP!!!!!! I've been waiting on this too... LOL, I'm not sure what kind of help we can be. In a lot of these cases the wheels of justice do turn very slowly. . . we are spoiled by how quickly the decisions came in McDonald, Ezell, and Moore/Shepard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted January 11, 2013 at 02:16 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 02:16 PM Or is the current legal focus on CCW and not really going after the AWB stuff? There are a lot of battles being fought by multiple groups. It all just happens so slow though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vess1 Posted January 11, 2013 at 02:40 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 02:40 PM I foresee Rahm sending another large donation to the SAF in the near future. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted January 11, 2013 at 04:46 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 04:46 PM TOOD!!!!! MOLLY!!!!! HELP!!!!!! I've been waiting on this too... LOL, I'm not sure what kind of help we can be. In a lot of these cases the wheels of justice do turn very slowly. . . we are spoiled by how quickly the decisions came in McDonald, Ezell, and Moore/Shepard. If I had gone back to school when Wilson started, I could be a Judge by now!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted January 11, 2013 at 09:00 PM Share Posted January 11, 2013 at 09:00 PM Well, I guess the beauty of this is that if Barry gets his AWB, and then this goes to SCOTUS and they rule in favor, the AWB would basically be gutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted January 12, 2013 at 03:56 AM Share Posted January 12, 2013 at 03:56 AM I foresee Rahm sending another large donation to the SAF in the near future. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2 Rahm's new AWB ordinance should be titled "the SAF/Alan Gura Income Enhancement Ordinance" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 12, 2013 at 04:25 AM Share Posted January 12, 2013 at 04:25 AM Rahm said he has the votes in Springfield to pass an AWB. If that is true why is he doing this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson24 Posted January 12, 2013 at 05:33 AM Share Posted January 12, 2013 at 05:33 AM Rahm said he has the votes in Springfield to pass an AWB. If that is true why is he doing thisbecause he is a chicago politician and when he opens his mouth you know what is happening......lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted May 6, 2013 at 05:28 PM Share Posted May 6, 2013 at 05:28 PM The Illinois supreme court kicked the case back to the circuit court because the case was improperly dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 of the code of civil procedure. Fancy lawyer talk for the circuit court didn't follow the rules, so the supreme court never addressed the substantive 2a issues. Just wanted to give a quick update about these wheels of justice that are moving so slow for this case.The discovery process continues. Plaintiffs and their attorneys are soon meeting with the Cook County attorneys who will interview the Plaintiffs at a Deposition. These are not be public. Each side is also in the process of recruiting Experts to give testimony for the trail, which is expected to take place later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted May 6, 2013 at 06:15 PM Share Posted May 6, 2013 at 06:15 PM Thanks for the update...stay strong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted May 6, 2013 at 06:19 PM Share Posted May 6, 2013 at 06:19 PM You need to get Massad Ayoob to testify. When he takes the stand the other side will and should give up. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted May 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM Share Posted May 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM A lot of people are missing this, but it could be the 600lbs. gorilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted May 7, 2013 at 12:38 AM Share Posted May 7, 2013 at 12:38 AM I've been waiting for this for 25 years!!! (Give or Take...) Hope they don't forget to use the "In common use" thingy. I was just thinking about this today when I saw someone has a Hi-Point carbine for sale on here - Want one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted May 7, 2013 at 01:01 AM Share Posted May 7, 2013 at 01:01 AM Yeah print out sales report from walmart and see if they are in common use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indigo Posted May 7, 2013 at 01:43 AM Share Posted May 7, 2013 at 01:43 AM Thanks for the update, Druid. We're all behind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted June 1, 2013 at 07:56 PM Share Posted June 1, 2013 at 07:56 PM Have to "Favoritize" this topic - lost track of it for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted June 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM Share Posted June 1, 2013 at 10:36 PM ..i forgot about it as well..thanx for the bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearsmithy Posted June 25, 2013 at 07:09 PM Share Posted June 25, 2013 at 07:09 PM DYou need to get Massad Ayoob to testify. When he takes the stand the other side will and should give up. I would contribute my own money to help get him to testify. Do we have an ETA on the trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatracer Posted June 25, 2013 at 09:48 PM Share Posted June 25, 2013 at 09:48 PM Illinois where our government knows what's best for us....Glad i am moving to Tennessee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted June 25, 2013 at 09:56 PM Share Posted June 25, 2013 at 09:56 PM Next trial dates I've been told are likely to be late-this-year/early-next-year. Just wait... after Wilson wins, all the local Semi-Auto Bans that have been passing lately will be tossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted June 25, 2013 at 11:48 PM Share Posted June 25, 2013 at 11:48 PM Why wouldnt the Il supreme court just rule on the thing, seems to me like they want to avoid ruling on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangrel Posted June 26, 2013 at 12:08 AM Share Posted June 26, 2013 at 12:08 AM Why wouldnt the Il supreme court just rule on the thing, seems to me like they want to avoid ruling on it Supreme Court only decides the issue presented to it. In this case, the issue before the Supreme Court was, "Was the case improperly dismissed?" Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.