Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
689 replies to this topic

#661 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 28 February 2016 - 01:22 PM

Off on a tangent here, but sometimes I think that flaming liberals want to (create a right for) women to abort a child until the age of 18. After all, it is her body....even though the kid is "officially" a human life, and is no longer in the womb. What I don't get is how they can charge a third party (through battery) with murder for causing a miscarriage but a woman can walk into PP and abort the same child, no questions asked. The former is murder and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The latter is a protected right. My logical brain spins in circles trying to figure out the reasoning and logic behind that disparate treatment of the same offense, materially speaking. But I digress. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#662 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 28 February 2016 - 03:01 PM

Off on a tangent here, but sometimes I think that flaming liberals want to (create a right for) women to abort a child until the age of 18. After all, it is her body....even though the kid is "officially" a human life, and is no longer in the womb. What I don't get is how they can charge a third party (through battery) with murder for causing a miscarriage but a woman can walk into PP and abort the same child, no questions asked. The former is murder and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The latter is a protected right. My logical brain spins in circles trying to figure out the reasoning and logic behind that disparate treatment of the same offense, materially speaking. But I digress. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

The only possible logic here is that the woman consented to one but not the other.  For a complete reconciliation with Roe v Wade, the fetal murder law would not kick in until the third trimester when the fetus was viable, but that is not what Illinois law states.  It states from fertilization.  720 ILCS 5/9 - 1.2.  This is merely an attempt to match up reasoning and does not necessarily reflect my own personal views.  But this is straying way off topic here so I won't reply on this thread any further about this.



#663 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 10:43 AM

Off on a tangent here, but sometimes I think that flaming liberals want to (create a right for) women to abort a child until the age of 18. After all, it is her body....even though the kid is "officially" a human life, and is no longer in the womb. What I don't get is how they can charge a third party (through battery) with murder for causing a miscarriage but a woman can walk into PP and abort the same child, no questions asked. The former is murder and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The latter is a protected right. My logical brain spins in circles trying to figure out the reasoning and logic behind that disparate treatment of the same offense, materially speaking. But I digress. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

You mean like this?

 

http://southpark.cc....nned-parenthood


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#664 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 10:49 AM

Lets keep the thread limited to discussions of Wilson. 



#665 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 February 2016 - 12:01 PM

Apologies I was merely pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the courts and politicians. Do as I say, not as I do. Liberals are already emboldened by the denials of cert in Friedman and Jackson, there's no telling what will happen now since they truly believe (delusionally) that SCOTUS has affirmed the constitutionality of AWBs within the Circuit Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#666 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 12:05 PM

Apologies I was merely pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the courts and politicians. Do as I say, not as I do. Liberals are already emboldened by the denials of cert in Friedman and Jackson, there's no telling what will happen now since they truly believe (delusionally) that SCOTUS has affirmed the constitutionality of AWBs within the Circuit Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

I'm with you skinny.  No harm no foul.  I just know that a lot of people that subscribe to these legal threads do so in anticipation of an update on a case they're watching closely.  Since these cases tend to move slowly, whenever we get a "New reply to Wilson v. Cook County" email, we get excited about new case info or a fresh perspective on some aspect of the case.  When these threads get derailed a moderator inevitably steps in a cleans house.



#667 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:09 PM

Pretty soon, this thread will be as long as the WAL-MART thread! :frantics: :flowers: :drool:



#668 singlecoilpickup

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,288 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 14

Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:20 PM

So, to the newbie who tried to tell Skinny where and where not to post - most of us who have been here a good long while care when Skinny posts even if you could try to argue it's slightly out of scope for the topic. His legal interpretations are very interesting to read.

 

Skinny - please continue to post whatever you want whenever you want. I know I for one enjoy whatever you post.



#669 Robert9999

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 86 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:31 PM

And wherever you wish, thank you for your insight.

Edited by Robert9999, 29 February 2016 - 02:32 PM.


#670 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 29 February 2016 - 02:41 PM

So, to the newbie who tried to tell Skinny where and where not to post - most of us who have been here a good long while care when Skinny posts even if you could try to argue it's slightly out of scope for the topic. His legal interpretations are very interesting to read.

 

Says the guy who who's been here a year less than I have.  Look man, I'm not chastising skinny. I love his posts, they're some of the best stuff on this board.  And I agree, his legal insights are great. But we have topics for a reason, and I don't think anyone should be above that.  If post count past some imaginary threshold gives you 'seniority' over others so be it, I just don't think a thread about a specific supreme court case that has nothing to do with abortion is an appropriate place to debate the subject, that's all.



#671 singlecoilpickup

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,288 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 14

Posted 29 February 2016 - 03:32 PM

 

So, to the newbie who tried to tell Skinny where and where not to post - most of us who have been here a good long while care when Skinny posts even if you could try to argue it's slightly out of scope for the topic. His legal interpretations are very interesting to read.

 

Says the guy who who's been here a year less than I have.  Look man, I'm not chastising skinny. I love his posts, they're some of the best stuff on this board.  And I agree, his legal insights are great. But we have topics for a reason, and I don't think anyone should be above that.  If post count past some imaginary threshold gives you 'seniority' over others so be it, I just don't think a thread about a specific supreme court case that has nothing to do with abortion is an appropriate place to debate the subject, that's all.

 

 

Perhaps you should leave the moderating to the moderators. 



#672 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 01 March 2016 - 12:14 PM

Perhaps...I don't wish to become the subject of an internal IC member dispute haha. While I appreciate the defense, I admit that I was off-topic. Chalk it up to being on a roll with some ideas that had been stewing in my head. That being said, let's get back on topic. @singlecoilpickup Guitarist I take it? I'm partial to hums that can be tapped (preferably) or splittable hums. EMGs and Seymour Duncan's, but I mainly play metal. I digress. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#673 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,466 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:31 PM

Is Wilson still considered alive and if so, are there any dates coming up this year we should be aware of?

“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#674 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 381 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 07 June 2016 - 08:41 AM

Bump



#675 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,161 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:42 AM

Next day in court is August 5 for a status conference.



#676 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,077 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 July 2016 - 12:17 PM

I thought this case was dead.

#677 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 05 July 2016 - 12:45 PM

I thought this case was dead.


Dormant but not dead, if I'm not mistaken. I'm curious how the judge will rule given that the SCOTUS has twice (maybe three times?) refused to hear any challenge to an AWB, along with the outcome of the Friedman case in the 7th circuit, but who knows? Maybe the court will actually strike the ban. Not likely, but I can still dream.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#678 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,618 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 05 July 2016 - 01:54 PM

I hope that, at a minimum, the parts of the Cook County measure which conflict with Illinois law are stricken.


Ad utrumque paratus


#679 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,161 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 15 August 2016 - 04:23 PM

Small update on this old case.

 

It's still, as MrTriple said, "dormant but not dead".

Waiting for the decision by the 4th Circuit’s en banc decision in the Kolbe case,  addressing whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban. Hopefully, the 4th Circuit will reach its decision soon and apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban, which we could use to argue that strict scrutiny should be applied to the Cook County ban too.



#680 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 15 August 2016 - 06:06 PM

Small update on this old case.
 
It's still, as MrTriple said, "dormant but not dead".[/size]
Waiting for the decision by the 4th Circuit’s [/size]en banc decision in the [/size]Kolbe case,  addressing whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban. [/size]Hopefully, the 4th Circuit will reach its decision soon and apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban, which we could use to argue that strict scrutiny should be applied to the Cook County ban too.[/size]


Although the judges in Cook seem rather anti, whoever's presiding over this case strikes me as surprisingly level-headed on the topic. He's not rushing to decisions either way, it seems, which is a refreshing change for once.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#681 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,161 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 16 August 2016 - 07:23 AM

 

Small update on this old case.
 
It's still, as MrTriple said, "dormant but not dead".[/size]
Waiting for the decision by the 4th Circuit’s [/size]en banc decision in the [/size]Kolbe case,  addressing whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban. [/size]Hopefully, the 4th Circuit will reach its decision soon and apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban, which we could use to argue that strict scrutiny should be applied to the Cook County ban too.[/size]


Although the judges in Cook seem rather anti, whoever's presiding over this case strikes me as surprisingly level-headed on the topic. He's not rushing to decisions either way, it seems, which is a refreshing change for once.

 

 

Well yes, but not exactly. The judge was being patient, but was running out of patience. He began pushing for this to go to trial before the end of this year. The ISRA/NRA attorneys recently had to make a motion to non-suit the case, which gives us up to a year to refile and continue where we left off.



#682 RacerDave6

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 07

Posted 17 August 2016 - 10:16 PM

I heard tonight that this suit is dead.
Firearms are not a talisman against evil. When used properly, they are an antidote to evil. T.Dunn

"Shoot the bad guy and keep shooting him until he stops doing whatever it
was that got him shot in the first place."


Match Director-IDPA at ASC
United States Riflemans Asscn instructor
NRA Certified instructor
NRA & ISRA member
Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry License instructor

#683 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:08 AM

I heard tonight that this suit is dead.

 

From Who?



#684 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 18 August 2016 - 07:19 PM

Just wanted to remind every one that his law suit against the "Blair Holt Assault weapon ban" was a law written into law in response to blair holt being killed by a handgun and not an assault weapon (if there's a such thing)


Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#685 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,843 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 19 August 2016 - 07:10 AM

I heard tonight that this suit is dead.

 

Define dead? And what does that mean for us?


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#686 POAT54

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,442 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 19 August 2016 - 07:13 AM

I heard tonight that this suit is dead.

 
Define dead? And what does that mean for us?
Means Taxwinkle will come for our guns.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#687 David Lombardo

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 10

Posted 19 August 2016 - 08:45 AM

Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on the issue. I'm one of the expert witnesses on Wilson and previously on Friedman.

 

Wilson v. Cook County is not dead. Our attorney moved to voluntarily dismiss the case on July 28, about a week prior to when we were to go to court to set a trial date, because the judge was pushing for a date prior to Thanksgiving. The move allows us to refile within one year and pick up where we left off specifically meaning everything remains intact including the long, voluminous discovery we went through with witnesses all over the country. 

 

The reason for this tactic is our attorney wants to wait for the 4th Circuit’s en banc decision in the Kolbe case. This is a critical step because the Kolbe case is about determining whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban.

 

Our attorney looked at the unfavorable decisions in Friedman, Shew and Heller II cases and realized moving forward at this time would not be in our best interest. Conversely, the possibility of a favorable decision by the 4th Circuit would be worth waiting for. If they decide to apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban it gives us a stronger case to argue the point that strict scrutiny should also be applied to the Cook County ban. And then there is also the simple reality that currently, with Scalia gone, SCOTUS isn't as friendly as it once was.  

 

So Wilson is not dead; it's biding its time and we're crossing our fingers. 



#688 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 19 August 2016 - 09:03 AM

Thank you for the update David!



#689 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:03 PM

Thank you for the update! Your decision here is a very logical one, I'm glad you guys are taking the slow way rather than trying to force things through.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#690 David Lombardo

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 10

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:14 PM

Oh, I'm just the bearer of the news. As an expert witness I don't have any input as to how they proceed. Please don't think that I'm anyone special or I have any control. I don't mean that in a negative way as the people who do make decisions are far smarter than I.

 

My role is nothing more than to discuss my area of expertise or, as in the case of Freidman, to make a video because it was impossible to demonstrate the live fire characteristics in a courtroom. I have a five person consulting group that provides a very wide array of subject matter expertise for both civil and criminal firearm and second amendment cases. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users