Jump to content


Photo

Cook Co. Forest Preserve suit?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 13 November 2017 - 08:33 AM

So -- it is for the children!


Considering that your average supporter of gun control is a child, this statement is true.
"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

#32 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 13 November 2017 - 09:45 PM

I hope the ban gets shot down in court, that would be AWESOME!  

 

I used to ride the Des Plaines River Trail all the time, but over the last several years it's gotten pretty bad and since they banned carry, I stopped going completely.  The last time I was out there, I had a group of degenerates about 150 yards ahead of me who I could clearly see were acknowledging that they saw me coming, then proceeded to get on either side of the trail, with one guy standing dead in the center.  I wear a helmet, so I began sprinting, and when I began to get closer, the guy in the center of the trail was motioning with his arms like he was trying to tell me something, so I put my head down like a ram and continued sprinting.  Thankfully he jumped out of the way lol, but I had it in my mind that if he was going to try something, my helmet would smash him in the face probably killing him ( I was going at least 25 mph ), but then I'd be at the mercy of the other losers that were with him.  

 

Since then, I've avoided those trails which has been a shame because I really enjoyed getting intense exercise riding my bike there, and the fact that it's so close I can ride my bike to the trail.  Hopefully this passes and I can get back out there next season instead of driving to Lake County.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#33 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:01 AM

But . . . but . . . but you would have been perfectly safe -- it was a GFZ.



#34 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 10:52 AM

I had my buddy read through the court document.  He said there's absolutely no way he wins this case.  That sucks and hopefully he's wrong, but he made some pretty good points why the county will win.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#35 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,908 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:01 AM

I had my buddy read through the court document.  He said there's absolutely no way he wins this case.  That sucks and hopefully he's wrong, but he made some pretty good points why the county will win.  

 

What were said points, if you wouldn't mind elaborating?


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#36 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:10 PM

 

I had my buddy read through the court document.  He said there's absolutely no way he wins this case.  That sucks and hopefully he's wrong, but he made some pretty good points why the county will win.  

 

What were said points, if you wouldn't mind elaborating?

 

I'm not overly familiar with the way court proceedings work, but here is more or less what he said.  

 

He said that after reading through the document it's a low scrutiny case which means that the burden is on the petitioner, and that it's assumed that the law is constitutional so the petitioner needs to prove that it's not. 

 

He said all the county needs to do is show up and say that it's a legitimate government interest.....like stating that "due to the extreme levels of gun violence in the county, banning guns in the forest preserves is a legitimate government interest".  The petitioner is also claiming that carry a gun outside of the home is a fundamental right, which not even Heller went as far as stating.  He said that the petitioner is arguing as if carrying is a fundamental right, which according to the courts it's not thus far, otherwise we'd be constitutional carry across the country.  

 

The legislature can claim whatever it wants, and by the petitioner arguing for strict scrutiny which is not applicable due to the above, there is no outcome other than the case being thrown out.  

 

He could be wrong, however he's an attorney so I'm guessing he's probably more right than wrong.  He's also pro gun so I wouldn't have a reason to doubt him, and only hope that he's wrong.  He said that the only way that part of the law gets changed is by the legislature, or by SCOTUS ruling in favor of carrying outside of the home, but odds are that they won't take a case like that up.  

 

ETA:  forgot to mention that he said that when it comes to low scrutiny, the government usually always wins, whereas if it's intermediate or strict, those are the times the government is able to lose.  

 

I'm doing my best to recall his points from memory, so I may have misstated a few things above.  I was arguing against him, so I did my best to recall his points.  


Edited by DD123, 14 November 2017 - 12:13 PM.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#37 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 12:21 PM

Rational basis. Is the law rationally (that's questionable) to a legitimate government interest. It's the exact same legal standard used in ad law. So they get away with so much ridiculous crap it boggles the mind. The constitutionality of Chicago red light cameras was affirmed using rational basis. Easterbrook got it dead wrong. It's irrational to fine the owner of a stolen car and make him prove that he didn't blow the light, the car thief did. I've seen petitions for TROs dealing with administrative law that are just...the TRO shouldn't be necessary. One where a judge compared a TN law in re suspending drivers licenses for those who can't pay their traffic fines in a lump sum to "fixing a broken arm with a shotgun. ' Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#38 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 14 November 2017 - 01:56 PM

I thought that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected the right to keep and BEAR arms, "which is as important outside the home as inside." McDonald affirmed that the 2A protected an individual, FUNDAMENTAL right. I'm pretty sure Reasonable Basis level of scrutiny is out the window, and some level of Intermediate Scrutiny, at minimum, is required by precedent in this judicial district. Take a look at Ezell and Moore. The problem is that that if they determine Intermediate Scrutiny is appropriate, some judges can find a way to justify almost anything they want if they rationalize it enough. If they believe the law is a reasonable fit to a substantial government interest, they'll be able to assume it's constitutional.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#39 transplant

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,431 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:53 PM

@skinny and @dd123 thanks for handing the enemy some arguments and legal research against us

Hillary Clinton is an "Original Classification Authority" - she knows exactly what she did with her emails.

 

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

 

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

 

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

 

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

 

(tt) “Violation” means:

(1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

 

http://www.thegatewa...on-home-server/


#40 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 04:57 PM

Seriously? Any 1L knows this stuff about tiers of scrutiny and when it's applicable. I didn't say that it IS the applicable standard. Only explained what it was and cited a few cases where rational basis was applied. IF rational basis is applied, that's up to the judge (again, not saying that's the correct standard). The core of the Second Amendment right is implicated here (so says CA7, "A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.") so rational basis is not the proper standard to apply in this case. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 14 November 2017 - 05:02 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#41 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 06:21 PM

@skinny and @dd123 thanks for handing the enemy some arguments and legal research against us

Neither of us said anything that a first year law student wouldn't already know.  Extremely hard to believe that we'd be saying anything that they don't already know, and probably know way better than I do.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#42 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 06:31 PM

I thought that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected the right to keep and BEAR arms, "which is as important outside the home as inside." McDonald affirmed that the 2A protected an individual, FUNDAMENTAL right. I'm pretty sure Reasonable Basis level of scrutiny is out the window, and some level of Intermediate Scrutiny, at minimum, is required by precedent in this judicial district. Take a look at Ezell and Moore. The problem is that that if they determine Intermediate Scrutiny is appropriate, some judges can find a way to justify almost anything they want if they rationalize it enough. If they believe the law is a reasonable fit to a substantial government interest, they'll be able to assume it's constitutional.

If carry outside the home was a fundamental right, the whole country would be constitutional carry but that would require it to be instituted through legislation at the federal level, or a SCOTUS ruling that the right to keep and bear arms outside the home is a fundamental right and they've avoided taking any cases in that realm.  McDonald gave us the right to keep arms inside the home, and our carry law had to be forced down the throats of our state legislators by court order, however carry is regulated by the state, if it wasn't then it would be a fundamental right, so that's not the same as what's in the court document for the case we're all talking about here.  Scalia left the door open in the Heller decision for "reasonable restrictions because the 2A is not unlimited".  I don't like it, you don't like it, but that's what it is.  

 

ETA:  I'm probably the one person on this forum that would benefit the most from the CCFPD ban on carry being tossed, so I'm hopeful that somehow, someway, this case gets ruled in our favor.  It doesn't look likely, but stranger things have happened.  


Edited by DD123, 14 November 2017 - 06:34 PM.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#43 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:54 PM

I'm not sure if Scalia's "reasonable restrictions" would apply in this instance. If the law in question substantially restricts the core right (of self-defense), and I believe it does in this instance as it (obviously) removes the ability to defend one's self with a firearm, then intermediate scrutiny applies. The question is how a court can draw a bright line for what "substantially" restricts the right. What is substantive to one person is meaningless to another. That and a judge down in St. Louis said that the state's ban on guns in zoos is constitutional even though the state constitution requires strict scrutiny for all 2A cases. I have no reason to believe that this prohibition's constitutionality would not be affirmed under intermediate scrutiny, obviously using some legal gymnastics to get there. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 14 November 2017 - 08:55 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#44 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,472 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:16 PM

The petitioner is also claiming that carry a gun outside of the home is a fundamental right, which not even Heller went as far as stating.  He said that the petitioner is arguing as if carrying is a fundamental right, which according to the courts it's not thus far

Is your buddy unfamiliar with Moore v. Madigan? That is binding precedent in the 7th Circuit.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#45 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:26 PM

 

Is your buddy unfamiliar with Moore v. Madigan? That is binding precedent in the 7th Circuit.

 

Sure he is, however that led to our carry law, which also bans carry in Cook Forest preserves in the carry law itself.  

 

Unless that part of the law is changed, either through legislation, or by court decision, it will stay that way.  

 

Read the petition itself.  It's taking the approach of challenging the law, however the burden of proof is on the petitioner proving that the law is unconstitutional, versus the state having to prove it since the assumption would be that the law is constitutional.  

 

We can all interpret the laws however we want, but the legislature and the courts aren't going to view them the way we do.  We can all be as "come and take it" as we want, but living in this god forsaken state, our only recourse is to challenge our garbage gun laws through the courts.         

 

I'd love for this case to be ruled in our favor, but I'm guessing the venue is going to be in Cook county, so does anyone honestly think we're going to get a judge that would view this the way any of us on here does?  If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.  


Edited by DD123, 14 November 2017 - 09:27 PM.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#46 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 14 November 2017 - 09:32 PM

I'd love for this case to be ruled in our favor, but I'm guessing the venue is going to be in Cook county, so does anyone honestly think we're going to get a judge that would view this the way any of us on here does?  If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.  
That's pretty much what I expect. They'll do what they can to "make it constitutional." The level of scrutiny isn't the big problem. It's the judiciary's unwillingness to actually do their jobs by calling balls and strikes without any bias. I'd even settle for a "little bit of bias" with an open mind. Not this "I'm enlightened and here is my enlightened opinion. Disagree with me? Too bad. I'm the judge and you're all idiots." crap. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#47 AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

    Firearm Instructor and Gun Rights Activist

  • Members
  • 7,959 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:29 AM

 

I'd love for this case to be ruled in our favor, but I'm guessing the venue is going to be in Cook county, so does anyone honestly think we're going to get a judge that would view this the way any of us on here does?  If the answer to that question is "yes", then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.  
That's pretty much what I expect. They'll do what they can to "make it constitutional." The level of scrutiny isn't the big problem. It's the judiciary's unwillingness to actually do their jobs by calling balls and strikes without any bias. I'd even settle for a "little bit of bias" with an open mind. Not this "I'm enlightened and here is my enlightened opinion. Disagree with me? Too bad. I'm the judge and you're all idiots." crap. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

This. And I think the lawyers are smart enough to realize that. I think they already know they are in for the long haul.


-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com  www.gunrights4illinois.com  @AlphaKoncepts


#48 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 15 November 2017 - 10:14 AM

I thought that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected the right to keep and BEAR arms, "which is as important outside the home as inside." McDonald affirmed that the 2A protected an individual, FUNDAMENTAL right. I'm pretty sure Reasonable Basis level of scrutiny is out the window, and some level of Intermediate Scrutiny, at minimum, is required by precedent in this judicial district. Take a look at Ezell and Moore. The problem is that that if they determine Intermediate Scrutiny is appropriate, some judges can find a way to justify almost anything they want if they rationalize it enough. If they believe the law is a reasonable fit to a substantial government interest, they'll be able to assume it's constitutional. If carry outside the home was a fundamental right, the whole country would be constitutional carry but that would require it to be instituted through legislation at the federal level, or a SCOTUS ruling that the right to keep and bear arms outside the home is a fundamental right and they've avoided taking any cases in that realm.  McDonald gave us the right to keep arms inside the home, and our carry law had to be forced down the throats of our state legislators by court order, however carry is regulated by the state, if it wasn't then it would be a fundamental right, so that's not the same as what's in the court document for the case we're all talking about here.  Scalia left the door open in the Heller decision for "reasonable restrictions because the 2A is not unlimited".  I don't like it, you don't like it, but that's what it is.     ETA:  I'm probably the one person on this forum that would benefit the most from the CCFPD ban on carry being tossed, so I'm hopeful that somehow, someway, this case gets ruled in our favor.  It doesn't look likely, but stranger things have happened.  
The 7th CA ruling only applies to the states in this circuit (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, maybe another). It was not appealed to SCOTUS but it is the law of the land in Illinois. "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. " Moore v. Madigan, 7th CA. SCOTUS already declared in McDonald v. Chicago that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual, fundamental right. In Heller, the dicta clearly confirmed that the right to bear arms is protected. The problem is that too much room was left open for "time, place and manner" restrictions, and that is what we will have to overcome to succeed in this case. Possessing a handgun in the home is protected by the 2nd Amendment, and is a fundamental right according to McDonald v. Chicago. Yet we have the FOID law, waiting periods, transfer and transportation laws regulating the right. Even though it is a fundamental right, it is still regulated by the state, as is the 1st Amendment. It's just a matter of what level of regulation is appropriate and not overly burdensome.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#49 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 November 2017 - 06:30 PM

  The 7th CA ruling only applies to the states in this circuit (Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, maybe another). It was not appealed to SCOTUS but it is the law of the land in Illinois. "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. " Moore v. Madigan, 7th CA.
Just Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Also, don't forget about Aguilar which is in lock-step with Moore. Ain't it strange how both the federal Circuit Court of Appeals AND the state supreme court have stated that carry outside the home is at the core of the Second Amendment right...in Illinois, of all places. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#50 patriot1776

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,205 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 12

Posted 16 November 2017 - 07:25 AM

I hope with recent events the sensitive areas are kept to a minimum and a forrest preserve and other areas like it,  are places I especially want to carry .



#51 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,379 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 16 November 2017 - 10:27 AM

If the Forest Preserve prohibition is kicked, I see the public park prohibition going soon after. Frankly, it's preposterous to bar licensees from carrying in a public park with all of the predators that hang out in parks. They keep catching child molesters for failure to register, and they catch them at the playgrounds. I have a daughter. She is my world, my everything, and if anyone screws with her, they will pay dearly. The thing about the public park ban being so bad is because my municipality (and many others) bans concealed knives so...how do I protect myself when I can't carry a gun or a concealed knife? Shall I hook a tomahawk or machete onto my belt? The only reason why there isn't a total knife ban is because you need a knife to clean fish, cut fishing line, whatever. The combination of banning concealed weapons as well as concealed blades is a de facto total disarmament of the populace. Nevermind the fact that a 50-something woman was nabbed off the trail (where I can carry) by some 20-something predator, hauled into the woods, threatened with death and raped repeatedly. Numerous people have been robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot which is right on a major US highway, yards away from the "no guns" sign posted at the entrance. Some guy was even robbed during a drug deal, had a shotgun pointed at his head and they stole his money. Same lot, yards away from the "no guns" sign. Ironically, he called the cops and they actually put out a Crimestoppers alert. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users