442 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

wow. I like the brief.

I can't wait to see what the County has to offer. I think this is going to get good. And once we go tot he Supreme's, more briefs will be flowing. It might actaully be possible for this to jump Heller 2 to SCOTUS.

[xbaltzx]

Howard Roark, on 03 December 2010 - 07:17 PM, said:

pdf attached

Howard, thanks for posting.

[Lou]

From the ISRA:

Quote

ISRA SUPPORTED SUIT AGAINST COOK COUNTY SUCCEEDS IN STATE SUPREME COURT

A case brought against Cook County, challenging its “Assault Weapon” ban passed in 2006, has finally been decided favorably for the ISRA backed Plaintiffs. The case of Wilson, et al. vs Cook County et al., was returned to the State Appellate Court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s exercise of its judicial authority, and the First District Appellate Court has been ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on the recent decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. McDonald was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which ISRA was one of the Plaintiffs.

In a move that surprised all parties to the litigation, the First District Appellate Court ordered both plaintiffs and defendants to file simultaneous briefs in 15 days, with no Reply briefing allowed. The Appellate court’s Order came within days of the Supreme Court’s issued mandate, which directs the Appellate Court to vacate and reconsider.

The purported “assault weapons,” as defined under the very broad and vague terms of the subject County Ordinance, include numerous semi-automatic handguns and rifles, including the Ar-15, M -1 Carbine, Smith & Wesson P99 pistol, Smith & Wesson 22A, Browning BAR Longtrack, Winchester Super X Rifle, and the Mini-30 Ranch Rifle. just to name a few Since the lawsuit was filed in early 2007. the enforcement of the Ordinance has been at a virtual stand-still, and the objective of the ISRA to see that this unwarranted ban is overturned with finality. A supplementary brief is being filed and the decision of the Appellate Court is expected soon. If required, ISRA is prepared to back this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted Sat Dec 4 05:37:18 CST 2010

[Lou]

I especially like these statements:

Quote

The term “assault weapon” has become a classic case of an “Alice-in-Wonderland world
where words have no meaning.” Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 354 (1970) Harlan
J. concurring)

.

Quote

“Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political
term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an
attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.”
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 1001 n.16 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citation omitted).

[Buzzard]

Quote

A case brought against Cook County, challenging its “Assault Weapon” ban passed in 2006, has finally been decided favorably for the ISRA backed Plaintiffs. The case of Wilson, et al. vs Cook County et al., was returned to the State Appellate Court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s exercise of its judicial authority, and the First District Appellate Court has been ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on the recent decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. McDonald was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which ISRA was one of the Plaintiffs.

In a move that surprised all parties to the litigation, the First District Appellate Court ordered both plaintiffs and defendants to file simultaneous briefs in 15 days, with no Reply briefing allowed. The Appellate court’s Order came within days of the Supreme Court’s issued mandate, which directs the Appellate Court to vacate and reconsider.

So if I understand this properly, The Supreme Court says the First District Appellate Court got it WRONG in it's first ruling and is being ordered to try again to issue a CORRECT ruling. Is that right?

[Tvandermyde]

yes Buzz. they were given a do over since it was decided by them after Heller, but before McDonald.

So we get two more bites at the apple here in Illinois.

[Sigma]

But the ISRA website said it succeeded. ("ISRA SUPPORTED SUIT AGAINST COOK COUNTY SUCCEEDS IN STATE SUPREME COURT"
How can they consider it to succeed

[Buzzard]

Sigma, on 04 December 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

But the ISRA website said it succeeded. ("ISRA SUPPORTED SUIT AGAINST COOK COUNTY SUCCEEDS IN STATE SUPREME COURT"
How can they consider it to succeed

Well, in my opinion - if you don't lose any ground and actually GAIN some ground, I consider that a success.

Had the lawsuit NOT been filed - what would you have?

[Tvandermyde]

sigma -- I don't write the ISRA press.

[Hatchet]

i consider it a success... the supreme could have said "yea the court was right" but they said "hey take another look at this" my 2 cents

[Druid]

Buzzard, on 04 December 2010 - 08:02 AM, said:

So if I understand this properly, The Supreme Court says the First District Appellate Court got it WRONG in it's first ruling and is being ordered to try again to issue a CORRECT ruling. Is that right?

The Supreme Court is saying is that the First District Appellate Court should look at the case again in the new light of McDonald and decide if it should now change its decision. The Appellate Court's decision against us before was based on the argument that the 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states, and that the 2nd Amendment was not a Fundamental Right that all Americans held. McDonald fixed all that and said yes it is incorporated, and yes it is a Fundamental Right. I don't see how the Appellate Count can rule against us at this point... even though I believe they will try hard to grasp at any straws to do so.

[Howard Roark]

Druid, on 04 December 2010 - 12:50 PM, said:

Buzzard, on 04 December 2010 - 08:02 AM, said:

So if I understand this properly, The Supreme Court says the First District Appellate Court got it WRONG in it's first ruling and is being ordered to try again to issue a CORRECT ruling. Is that right?

The Supreme Court is saying is that the First District Appellate Court should look at the case again in the new light of McDonald and decide if it should now change its decision. The Appellate Court's decision against us before was based on the argument that the 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated against the states, and that the 2nd Amendment was not a Fundamental Right that all Americans held. McDonald fixed all that and said yes it is incorporated, and yes it is a Fundamental Right. I don't see how the Appellate Count can rule against us at this point... even though I believe they will try hard to grasp at any straws to do so.

When do you expect the oral arguments?  I work in the Loop and would like to take a couple of hours off to hear them, if I can get into the gallery.  Thanks for all your work on this litigation.

That brief was some of the most awesome writing I've read post-McDonald.  I think there is reason to be guardedly optimistic as you are.  That brief has it it all:  fundamental right, co-equal with Amendments 1, 4, 5 (actually all the incorporated ones), touches on right-to-carry, importance of the militia, all the good stuff!  I am inferring this from the brief, but did Cook actually argue that because handguns are now allowed that it is OK to ban (black) rifles?   Isn't that the opposite of Chicago's argument that they could ban handguns because a small choice of rifles were registerable?  I wish Cook & Chicago could keep their stories straight... on second thought, I like it when their thinking and arguments are all messed up. LOL!

[Druid]

Howard Roark, on 04 December 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

When do you expect the oral arguments?  I work in the Loop and would like to take a couple of hours off to hear them...

Not sure. They might not even grant Oral Arguments, but I hope they do. As soon as I, or anybody else finds out, please post the time/location here.

[Druid]

The County's brief. Basically trying to lie and argue that Heller/McDonald only applied to hand guns, and that this semi-auto ban only bans "rapid fire" (!?) "assault weapons" which are too dangerous, just like grenade launchers (!?), and thus banning them doesn't violate out 2nd Amendment right.  Funny, I didn't realize that adding a telescoping stock to my rifle would suddenly somehow make it too-dangerous for society.  

I tried to upload the PDF but it's too big... 15MB. I tried a few times but it's a no-go.

[Tvandermyde]

bust it up into a couple of pieces then post them individually

[Druid]

Tvandermyde, on 04 December 2010 - 08:12 PM, said:

bust it up into a couple of pieces then post them individually

I just e-mailed it to you. (@aol) Please see what you can do with it.

[abolt243]

mstrat, on 03 December 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

By the way, does anybody know where this "20 times as likely" is from?

Quote

The prefatory clauses to the ordinance here made negative comments about firearms in general and made two allegations about "assault weapons." Wilson, 394 Ill.App.3d at 535-36. First, it claims that "assault weapons are 20 times more likely to be used in the commission of a crime than other kinds of weapons," id. at 535, but the U.S. Department of Justice study found that "AWs [assault weapons] were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the [federal] ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%."7

I'm not very fluent in legalese, but I assume that refers to something in the original Wilson case... was it the judge's ruling? Or the county's argument in that case?

Just curious because that's a HUGE difference. At a glance "8" vs "20" seems similar - but those are different scales.  Let's translate those both into percent of total gun crimes.

DOJ says: assault weapons used in 2% to 8% of gun crimes.
Cook county says: assault weapons are 20 times more likely to be used in a crime, which means for every 1 non-assault weapon used, there are 20 assault weapons used.... or 95.24% of gun crimes

Somebody's lying, and I doubt it's the DOJ study.

Look at the definition of those firearms in each case.  Any firearm with >10 round capacity qualifies as an "assault weapon" in Cook County, I don't believe that's true for the DOJ list.  How many handguns that have a 10+ capacity magazine get stolen every year and used in a crime??  

Apples to bananas.

Oranges to peaches.

Federal BS to Cook County BS.

AB

[mstrat]

abolt243, on 04 December 2010 - 09:08 PM, said:

Look at the definition of those firearms in each case.  Any firearm with >10 round capacity qualifies as an "assault weapon" in Cook County, I don't believe that's true for the DOJ list.  How many handguns that have a 10+ capacity magazine get stolen every year and used in a crime??  

Ahh of course. Thanks abolt.  I was just thinking of Scary Black Rifles.

[mstrat]

Druid, on 04 December 2010 - 08:08 PM, said:

The County's brief. Basically trying to lie and argue that Heller/McDonald only applied to hand guns, and that this semi-auto ban only bans "rapid fire" (!?) "assault weapons" which are too dangerous, just like grenade launchers (!?), and thus banning them doesn't violate out 2nd Amendment right

Yea, they definitely can't argue Heller and McDonald only applied to handguns. The bigger issue was that "strict scrutiny" must be met for any limitations on the 2nd Amendment.  If they keep up the "rapid fire" argument, I hope somebody calls their BS and forces them to show evidence.  There's absolutely *zero* reason to believe the banned firearms are any more dangerous than any other semi auto.

There was an old exhibition shooter who fired off 12 rounds in under 2 seconds - that's almost 400 rounds per minute!... using revolvers!

Anyhow - I look forward to seeing the judge's ruling. And if he/she rules against Wilson again without some damn good "strict scrutiny" ala real evidence proving it's necessary for public safety, I hope somebody applies the modern equivalent of a tar and feathering.  The hoplophobia needs to stop in this state.

[GarandFan]

My first impression of Cook county's (Anita Alvarez) brief is this:

They must think if they repeat the words "dangerous", "unusual", "rapid-fire", and "high-capacity" enough times, the court is bound to agree with their position.

I find the arguments incredibly stretched.  Especially their run-down of recent case law (eg. decisions upholding NFA provisions), which they argue support their position.  Anita must have had a play-dough set when she was a little girl.

[mikew]

GarandFan, on 05 December 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

Anita must have had a play-dough set when she was a little girl.

Silly putty, perhaps.
Play-dough won't actually stretch very much.

[GarandFan]

mikew, on 05 December 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 05 December 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

Anita must have had a play-dough set when she was a little girl.

Silly putty, perhaps.
Play-dough won't actually stretch very much.

:-)  Yes, silly putty is a better analogy.  Or Stretch Armstrong, perhaps!

[Lou]

mikew, on 05 December 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 05 December 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

Anita must have had a play-dough set when she was a little girl.

Silly putty, perhaps.
Play-dough won't actually stretch very much.

If there is any doubt about Ms. Alvarez's thoughts on the Constitution, let this put it to rest.

NOBODY should be able to own a gun according to her. Didn't she take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution?   Oh wait, it's only PARTS of it in Illinois.

[Joeyl]

Lou, on 05 December 2010 - 07:56 PM, said:

mikew, on 05 December 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 05 December 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

Anita must have had a play-dough set when she was a little girl.

Silly putty, perhaps.
Play-dough won't actually stretch very much.

If there is any doubt about Ms. Alvarez's thoughts on the Constitution, let this put it to rest.

NOBODY should be able to own a gun according to her. Didn't she take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution?   Oh wait, it's only PARTS of it in Illinois

Perhaps our attorney general, Lisa Madigan could remind Ms. Alvarez of her oath and her duty to put personal beliefs aside in upholding the duties of her office. LOL

[Sigma]

Lets flood her inbox with letters like the one I just sent.


Dear Anita Alvarez,

Please put your personal beliefs aside and uphold the constitution as you swore to do. Your fight to uphold the assault weapons ban is a waste of our money and does nothing to stop crime. Criminals want a firearm they can conceal. They don’t want to walk down the street with a long so called “assault weapon”.

How many people have been convicted since this ban has been put in place?

Your efforts could be used to stop known felons from getting back on the streets.

Additionally your description of an assault weapon couldn’t be more inaccurate. Just becase a firearm looks like a machine gun capable of firing multiple rounds with one trigger pull doesn’t mean it should be banned. Why don’t you at least listen to opposing views.

[Joeyl]

Sigma, on 05 December 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

Lets flood her inbox with letters like the one I just sent.


Dear Anita Alvarez,

Please put your personal beliefs aside and uphold the constitution as you swore to do. Your fight to uphold the assault weapons ban is a waste of our money and does nothing to stop crime. Criminals want a firearm they can conceal. They don’t want to walk down the street with a long so called “assault weapon”.

How many people have been convicted since this ban has been put in place?

Your efforts could be used to stop known felons from getting back on the streets.

Additionally your description of an assault weapon couldn’t be more inaccurate. Just becase a firearm looks like a machine gun capable of firing multiple rounds with one trigger pull doesn’t mean it should be banned. Why don’t you at least listen to opposing views.

Mind if I paraphrase your letter?

[papa]

If she thinks guns cause crime , I wonder what she thinks the problem is in Australia . She thinks people would be safer without them but it doesn't seem to be working that way down under.

[Fidelity Academy]

papa, on 05 December 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

If she thinks guns cause crime , I wonder what she thinks the problem is in Australia . She thinks people would be safer without them but it doesn't seem to be working that way down under.

At any rate, I am very optimistic. I believe that we will see history made even more. On that day, there will be a party for all NRA, ISRA and IllinoisCarry folks we can squeeze into our academy - smack dab in the middle of Chicago!

[Howard Roark]

Fidelity Academy, on 05 December 2010 - 09:56 PM, said:

papa, on 05 December 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

If she thinks guns cause crime , I wonder what she thinks the problem is in Australia . She thinks people would be safer without them but it doesn't seem to be working that way down under.

At any rate, I am very optimistic. I believe that we will see history made even more. On that day, there will be a party for all NRA, ISRA and IllinoisCarry folks we can squeeze into our academy - smack dab in the middle of Chicago!

Excellent, thanks for your post.  Has your company already donated to ISRA or IllinoisCarry?  If yes, thanks and maybe donate again, please.  Otherwise, can you bring some bucks to the table with a donation?  Just asking, thanks for your posts.

[Sigma]

Joeyl, on 05 December 2010 - 09:18 PM, said:

Sigma, on 05 December 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

Lets flood her inbox with letters like the one I just sent.


Dear Anita Alvarez,

Please put your personal beliefs aside and uphold the constitution as you swore to do. Your fight to uphold the assault weapons ban is a waste of our money and does nothing to stop crime. Criminals want a firearm they can conceal. They don’t want to walk down the street with a long so called “assault weapon”.

How many people have been convicted since this ban has been put in place?

Your efforts could be used to stop known felons from getting back on the streets.

Additionally your description of an assault weapon couldn’t be more inaccurate. Just becase a firearm looks like a machine gun capable of firing multiple rounds with one trigger pull doesn’t mean it should be banned. Why don’t you at least listen to opposing views.

Mind if I paraphrase your letter?

go right ahead