Jump to content

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


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

I don't understand the fast tracking to SCOTUS. You have at least a shot at en banc, which would erase the Freidman opinion and get us back to square one. Further, the IL state courts aren't bound by CA7 (although it's certainly persuasive authority). So Wilson can still win with the Freidman opinion in place. And even though the opinion was crappy, SCOTUS reviews actual judgments, not the opinions contained in the judgments, and with SCOTUS' passing on ALL 2A cases I think it highly unlikely they jump on the very first AWB case to reach it.

Remember that SCOTUS won't even act on a Freidman petition (even one filed tomorrow) until the opening conference in late September/early October. En banc would be likely granted or denied by then anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.
The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.

The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.

Nice!

 

Then on to the IL supreme, 7th Circuit (who are both going to cite 7th circuit president) then another appeal to SCOTUS right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.

The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.

 

Nice!

 

Then on to the IL supreme, 7th Circuit (who are both going to cite 7th circuit president) then another appeal to SCOTUS right?

I wouldn't get too excited..the reality is that for a judge deciding the constitutionality of a law, a higher court's decision carries a lot of weight. Since this is the 2A we're talking about, there's no guarantee that Cohen would rule to strike the ban. Although it's not binding precedent, the denial of cert issued by the SCOTUS would still be ammunition for the antis and the judges in this state certainly aren't inclined to uphold the 2A unless they have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Wilson case will be before Judge Cohen on December 17th. He had placed it on a “stay” until Friedman was resolved on its petition for cert.

The judge will either set it for trial sometime in early 2016 or he may decide to rule based on the Friedman decision in the federal appellate court. If he decides to rule against us based on Friendman, we would then appeal his decision.

Has anyone heard any news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Wilson is filed in state court so the 7th circuit opinion is not binding (though it may be found to be compelling especially given that the case was held pending the result of Friedman). Regardless, appeal (by either side) would go to the State Supreme Court (again) and that decision could be appealed (via cert petition) directly to SCOTUS bypassing the 7th. I don't know if Wilson has preserved any issues of state law ("Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -- a legal morass if there ever was one...) If so, the IL supreme court could escape all scrutiny from SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?

Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?

 

Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?

Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

What do our chances look like at the Illinois Supreme Court?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Maryland decision could give some wings to Wilson?

Regardless of the outcome, to whom would Wilson be appealed?Silhouette outlines that above, from the circuit court it would go to the IL Supreme Court, then to SCOTUS from there

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

What do our chances look like at the Illinois Supreme Court?

Considering that the CA7 found the Highland Park ban (a verbatim copy of Cook's ban) to be constitutional, and the IL state constitution has less protection of the right to keep and bear arms, I'd say we don't have a snowball's chance in [heck]

 

BUT, if the CA4 ruling holds then we will have a bona-fide circuit split when appealing to SCOTUS, which will make them more likely to take the case

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ILSC has been altering its opinions in cases which conflict with SCOTUS precedent so I wouldn't expect a departure from that policy any time soon. It modified a case out of Sterling where a cop pulled a man over after running the tags, finding out that the registrant had an outstanding warrant. Too bad the driver wasn't the registrant...or a woman (registrant is female). LEO knew he didn't stop the subject of the warrant and continued with the stop, found the driver had a suspended license. Court tossed it then reinstated the conviction after Rodriguez v. U.S. was decided.

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last week, there was another continuation for Wilson. The court continued the case in light of the 4th Circuit’s decision regarding the Maryland ban, and the soon-to-be-filed petitions for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the 2d Circuit’s decision on the New York and Connecticut bans.[/size]

Normally I'd cheer this, but given our luck with Friedman and the fact that Kennedy might not side with us if cert is granted, I feel like giving out a loud groan. Who knows, maybe our luck will be better, or maybe we'd be tying our own noose on the "assault weapons" issue. Best of luck I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Kolbe is finally judged on by CA4, presumably after Blake is forced to eat crow on remand, hold trial or grant summary judgment finding in favor of Plaintiffs and that judgment is affirmed by the Circuit, SCOTUS will have to take it. It's a significant departure from stare decisis and would be almost an automatic cert grant because of the constitutional question. This isn't like Moore. CA4's mandate in Kolbe creates a huge equal protection issue. Well, will create after Blake has to reverse herself.

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Kolbe is finally judged on by CA4, presumably after Blake is forced to eat crow on remand, hold trial or grant summary judgment finding in favor of Plaintiffs and that judgment is affirmed by the Circuit, SCOTUS will have to take it. It's a significant departure from stare decisis and would be almost an automatic cert grant because of the constitutional question. This isn't like Moore. CA4's mandate in Kolbe creates a huge equal protection issue. Well, will create after Blake has to reverse herself.

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Again, I agree with the bolded section, but my concern is this: while the SCOTUS should grant cert when the time comes, they haven't always ruled the way they should have in different cases throughout the course of their history. While it is a slam dunk, they could decide to knock the ball away just because they can. We know the court is split in half on the 2A, and Kennedy is believed to have come to regret supporting Heller and McDonald. He can't be relied upon to rule correctly on any future 2A cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This creates a huge problem. That problem being those who live within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit basically have more rights than those under the jurisdiction of the other federal circuits. We get the asinine intermediate scrutiny using the two-step "Does/do the conduct or item(s) in question fall under the protection of the Second Amendment? If so, how much does this law burden the right." Well I have to say that's a ridiculously subjective question. Just because they say it's a de minimis burden doesn't mean anything. It's the opinion of three unelected, unaccountable, likely partisan judges. I respect Chief Judge Traxler for tossing politics to the wayside and interpreting the Second Amendment as written. Not as some archaic, deprecated Constitutional Amendment that doesn't really apply today because the Founders couldn't have foreseen the firearms in use today. Of course the Framers didn't expect us to be using muskets today. Only an idiot would believe that technology doesn't improve. They couldn't have imagined the future but they were intelligent enough to realize that, like any civilization, we would improve on or develop new technology. Anything less is myopic.

 

While Kennedy may regret his decisions in Heller and McDonald, it really doesn't matter. He's on record. So for him to do a complete 180 would be unprecedented. "I supported if before I didn't support it." What would concern me, with the Court being 4-4 (or even 5-4) is the question involving the standard of judicial review. Thank God we have the Scalia and Thomas dissents in denial of cert in Jackson and Friedman. We do not apply different standards to different rights. First Amendment gets more protection than Second. No question. That should not be the case. The Constitution's guarantees are not contingent on a body count. Besides, the First Amendment is far more dangerous than the Second. Bottom line is that I'd feel better if we get a Republican in the WH and Ginsburg (and likely Kennedy, Breyer as well) retire soon. Remember, Kennedy said he wouldn't retire unless a Republican is elected POTUS. Get a Dem POTUS and we will see a Court where the Rule of Four is rendered useless because Roberts and Alito will be the only two conservative (compared to Sotomayor) Justices left. With seven liberals on the Court, they'll be able to do whatever they want from the bench. "health insurance is a basic right" "a job is a civil right" "college education is a right" "abort your child whenever you want. Even post-birth."

 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...