jkdkaliman101 Posted February 16, 2019 at 12:56 AM Share Posted February 16, 2019 at 12:56 AM I'm curious about the legal order of things should the 101st general assembly and JB pass any unconstitutional anti 2A laws. Would an appeal go directly to the 7th circuit or does it start in a federal trial court? Also I know we have a super majority as far as our law makers go but what about the courts? Would a lawsuit to fight an unconstitutional law be more prone to work in our favor or against? Sorry if these are naive questions. Admittedly I don't really understand the integrals of our court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic6010 Posted February 16, 2019 at 01:26 AM Share Posted February 16, 2019 at 01:26 AM These laws have been on the books in many states for many years now. How long its gonna take before the right case goes before a court and goes all the way up the chain is anyones guess.Its a complete legal grey area. None of these laws they are about to force on us are covered under the Second Amendment by definition. Its all about the spirit of the law.Its in that vagueness that lies all the trouble and all the hope that one day, finally, the antis can be stopped. I'm sure some of the more silly bills they come up with can be filed against immediately and be stopped immediately. But the major ones like the bans are not going anywhere for a while. Otherwise they would already be gone and couldn't be enacted in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted February 16, 2019 at 04:48 AM Share Posted February 16, 2019 at 04:48 AM What court would hear an appeal all depends on where the case is brought. Bring a case in state court and you have to work your way through the Illinois trial court, appellate court and potentially the Illinois Supreme Court. From there, if there is a US Const. 2nd Amendment claim that you lose in the Illinois courts, you could try to get cert in the US Supreme Court. If the case begins in US District Court-the federal court- then the appeal of would go to the Seventh Circuit and then to the US Supreme Court if the Supreme Court is willing to take the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 16, 2019 at 05:06 AM Share Posted February 16, 2019 at 05:06 AM These laws have been on the books in many states for many years now. How long its gonna take before the right case goes before a court and goes all the way up the chain is anyones guess.Its a complete legal grey area. None of these laws they are about to force on us are covered under the Second Amendment by definition. Its all about the spirit of the law.Its in that vagueness that lies all the trouble and all the hope that one day, finally, the antis can be stopped. I'm sure some of the more silly bills they come up with can be filed against immediately and be stopped immediately. But the major ones like the bans are not going anywhere for a while. Otherwise they would already be gone and couldn't be enacted in the first place. It only takes the Supreme Court to rule once that strict scrutiny applies to 2nd infringements and a bunch of these laws will fall like dominos as they don't meet the strict scrutiny test. The perfect mundane case to do this has been accepted to the SCOTUS, let's hope they add in those two words and let the fun begin. The reason these laws have been allowed to stand is that the SCOTUS has been playing kick the can with the 2nd amendment forever, when they ruled on Heller it changed everything, but with the split court I believe the conservative Justices (as much as it grinds me) did us justice in not expanding the 2nd too fast after Heller as the votes could have gone either way, but now it the courts are leaning in our favor and I highly suspect that is why they are finally addressing the 2nd again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted February 16, 2019 at 04:34 PM Share Posted February 16, 2019 at 04:34 PM " if the Supreme Court is willing to take the case."Herein is where the problem lies... "willing"... and that's garbage when it comes to rights under the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkdkaliman101 Posted February 17, 2019 at 04:36 AM Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 at 04:36 AM These laws have been on the books in many states for many years now. How long its gonna take before the right case goes before a court and goes all the way up the chain is anyones guess.Its a complete legal grey area. None of these laws they are about to force on us are covered under the Second Amendment by definition. Its all about the spirit of the law.Its in that vagueness that lies all the trouble and all the hope that one day, finally, the antis can be stopped. I'm sure some of the more silly bills they come up with can be filed against immediately and be stopped immediately. But the major ones like the bans are not going anywhere for a while. Otherwise they would already be gone and couldn't be enacted in the first place. It only takes the Supreme Court to rule once that strict scrutiny applies to 2nd infringements and a bunch of these laws will fall like dominos as they don't meet the strict scrutiny test. The perfect mundane case to do this has been accepted to the SCOTUS, let's hope they add in those two words and let the fun begin. The reason these laws have been allowed to stand is that the SCOTUS has been playing kick the can with the 2nd amendment forever, when they ruled on Heller it changed everything, but with the split court I believe the conservative Justices (as much as it grinds me) did us justice in not expanding the 2nd too fast after Heller as the votes could have gone either way, but now it the courts are leaning in our favor and I highly suspect that is why they are finally addressing the 2nd again. I hope you're right. Your reply/explanation gives me consolation that all hope is not lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted February 17, 2019 at 05:26 AM Share Posted February 17, 2019 at 05:26 AM RBG gets replaced by a Conservative Constitutionialist ... Anti 2A folks are screwed !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 17, 2019 at 06:31 AM Share Posted February 17, 2019 at 06:31 AM RBG gets replaced by a Conservative Constitutionialist ... Anti 2A folks are screwed !!! I agree, if that happens it would be a 2A revolution. Ever since Heller declared the 2nd an individual right, the ball has been teetering at the top of a hill, tip the balance of the courts fully conservative and the antis are going to find themselves on the wrong side of the law real quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted February 17, 2019 at 01:20 PM Share Posted February 17, 2019 at 01:20 PM RBG gets replaced by a Conservative Constitutionialist ... Anti 2A folks are screwed !!!THIS ^^^ That's the crown jewel for us. There are plans for cases just waiting for the right time ( POST RBG ) to start moving. Not only that but the leftist wackos will go into absolute meltdown knowing the guy they hate the most is replacing the liberal loon icon with a Constitutional Conservative. if you thought the Kavanaugh ordeal was nuts just wait until you see the freak out over replacing Ginsburg. Personally I'm going to enjoy every minute of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted February 17, 2019 at 10:44 PM Share Posted February 17, 2019 at 10:44 PM MUCH as I would like to see RBG become "worm food", we can't count on any judge to fully support our Constitutional rights. And, even if they WERE "pro-2A", getting the SC to hear the case is another hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted February 18, 2019 at 04:05 AM Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 04:05 AM Re RBG, 2 things are pretty obvious: (1) she is incapable of performing the duties of her office, and in all likelihood just looks at the political slant of the case, comes to her politically drawn conclusion and tells her clerks to act accordingly; and (2) she is a political animal and is only refusing to retire in order to keep Trump from appointing a replacement. I wish there was a mechanism, as there is for most any other office, for removing an incompetent or incapable Supreme Court Justice from office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 18, 2019 at 05:37 AM Share Posted February 18, 2019 at 05:37 AM I wish there was a mechanism, as there is for most any other office, for removing an incompetent or incapable Supreme Court Justice from office. There is, a Justice can be impeached and then removed by the House/Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.