442 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

The question on Heller from the judge was as he recalled it was a glock 40, thus a high cap (standard size to us gunnies) made it illegal under the ordinance

Maybe ypur right federal, but i am just reporting what i was told

At this juncture i will take the preemption ruling as it rat #€£ks chicago big time, along with oakmpark and aurora and a few other places

The big question is how are they goung to deal with kalidimos?

[NakPPI]

Confusing Heller 1 and 2 maybe?

The audio is up
http://www.state.il....a/On_Demand.asp


Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Edited by NakPPI, 18 January 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[Druid]

Video is online: http://www.state.il....a/On_Demand.asp

[Sigma]

Most likely outcome maybe ruling that the ordinance is preempted under the wildlife code

what does that mean

[JackTripper]

Druid, on 18 January 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Video is online: http://www.state.il....a/On_Demand.asp

Thanks. Going to copy it up to the TV and watch it before my wife gets home

[Bud]

what is "kalidimos"?

[NakPPI]

The only thing in front of the court is the motion to dismiss. It is completely optional for the court to go beyond that. The trial court and appellate screwed up the procedural issues as I suspected. I doubt anything substantial will come of this.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[abolt243]

BudMan5, on 18 January 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

what is "kalidimos"?

He's referring to Kalodimos v City of Morton Grove back in 1984 when Mr. Kalodimos challenged the village's handgun ban.  If I remember, he lost on appeal, but I can't remember the relavance that Todd and others attach to the case when linking it to Wilson.  Hopefully, he'll have time for the Cliff Notes version.

This whole thing just looks like another "no opinion" opinion from the Illinois courts.  It appears that over the years, we've bred the spines out of our justices and our legislators.  


Tim

[JackTripper]

Sigma, on 18 January 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Most likely outcome maybe ruling that the ordinance is preempted under the wildlife code

what does that mean

It means that the court could strike down cook, and say the firearms are permitted by the DNR rules.

But the Governor would then be able to change those rules by executive decree, re-banning the firearms.

In other words we are likely screwed if the court takes the easy route in supporting us.

[Tvandermyde]

Kalodimos was the last ruling on the 2 amendment by the illinois supreme court. All of the appealte decisions coming out of cook/dist 1 cite it was precedent they are bound by even tho Heller overturned it, but our supreme court has not ruled it invalid. It need to be tossed by the court

The wildlife code is just that code, state law. A lot of the things about guns are in there by statute. If we win the wild life code argument, they will be screaming and we will ba able to stop anything they toss at us. Even rules have to go before jcar. And by my count we can lock up new rules there

[JackTripper]

Tvandermyde, on 18 January 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

The wildlife code is just that code, state law. A lot of the things about guns are in there by statute. If we win the wild life code argument, they will be screaming and we will ba able to stop anything they toss at us. Even rules have to go before jcar. And by my count we can lock up new rules there

Oh! So it would be a positive outcome then!
I thought those rules were set by the bureaucrats who work at DNR, and report to the Governor.

[abolt243]

JackTripper, on 18 January 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 18 January 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

The wildlife code is just that code, state law. A lot of the things about guns are in there by statute. If we win the wild life code argument, they will be screaming and we will ba able to stop anything they toss at us. Even rules have to go before jcar. And by my count we can lock up new rules there

Oh! So it would be a positive outcome then!
I thought those rules were set by the bureaucrats who work at DNR, and report to the Governor.

Nope, statute, just like the criminal code.


Wildlife Code

[colt-45]

are they going to rule on this any time soon?

[mstrat]

Here it is on YouTube, in case that's any easier for anyone (and for posterity):

[mstrat]

Still watching it... but am I right in understanding the county's argument, around 35 or 36 minutes, that the county should be able to use intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny because it would be easier for the county and for the court?

Seriously!?

[milq]

mstrat: That's pretty much what I got from that portion as well.

I can now add watching the courts in action to my list of experiences. I was actually a bit surprised, I expected more "inflamed" arguments....probably a product of watching movies and TV.
Everyone was calm, but both sides seemed a bit unpolished in some portions of their arguments. (again, I'll blame tv for my expectations)

Edited by milq, 19 January 2012 - 01:04 AM.

[NakPPI]

milq, on 19 January 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

mstrat: That's pretty much what I got from that portion as well.

I can now add watching the courts in action to my list of experiences. I was actually a bit surprised, I expected more "inflamed" arguments....probably a product of watching movies and TV.
Everyone was calm, but both sides seemed a bit unpolished in some portions of their arguments. (again, I'll blame tv for my expectations)

Lol
This was actually a fairly good oral argument. The cook county attorney stumbled, but that happens. You should listen to some of the appellate arguments if you want to hear some real train wrecks. I listened to a really awful 2A case a while ago. Real courts are nothing like tv and appellate courts don't have a jury, judges don't take grand standing and drama well.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[robinp]

Am I correct that sitting in the background is former Illinois Gov Jim Thompson. If so, what is his role/title in this process?

[xmikex]

robinp, on 19 January 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Am I correct that sitting in the background is former Illinois Gov Jim Thompson. If so, what is his role/title in this process?

Somebody posted above I think that Jim Thompson helped our side in preparing for the case.

[Tvandermyde]

Gov. Thompson was in the moot curt session and helped with the amici brief from thenmanufacturers.

I spoke with him today and he thinks it went very well

They have several options at this point:

1. 2A ruling
2. Remand for a development of a better record
3. Accept the preemption argument and kick it

[colt-45]

Tvandermyde, on 19 January 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Gov. Thompson was in the moot curt session and helped with the amici brief from thenmanufacturers.

I spoke with him today and he thinks it went very well

They have several options at this point:

1. 2A ruling
2. Remand for a development of a better record
3. Accept the preemption argument and kick it

witch one is the best and witch one is the worst out of all three Todd?

[NakPPI]

I know I'm not Todd

The best and least likely outcome would be a 2A decision. It would give us precedent for future cases.

The problem with this case is that there is a huge procedural problem. These issues couldn't possibly be resolved on a 2-615 motion, if the judge thought that the complaint was defective, the plaintiff could have amended the complaint.

The other problem is that the statute is void for vagueness. The court could invalidate it without ever reaching a 2A issue easily.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Sigma]

I think there side sounded like a fool. no wonder he lost his train of thought all you have is one thing to say, guns are yucky. Oh and that courts cant  rule on legislative stuff? Where was he trying to go with that crap.
I dont like this AWB but didnt realize how bad it was until hearing this. Hes right, you can buy a firearm that is legal in cook county today and the Chinese makes a magazine to fit that firearm that holds more than 10 rounds and you are now a criminal.
The court shouldnt need to hear anything else.


Sounds to me like they want to use the wildlife code as a way to rule and not have to deal with it. Can they rule on preemption and still add something to prevent Quinns obvious next move?

[mstrat]

Sigma, you're absolutely right.  The more I looked into it, the more I realized nearly all firearms are banned in Cook county.

Seriously.
I think a revolver is the only legal firearm I own.

Regarding the possible outcomes:  If the case gets remanded that's going to drag this out for another year or more, correct?

[NakPPI]

Quote

Regarding the possible outcomes:  If the case gets remanded that's going to drag this out for another year or more, correct?

Yup. The case starts at the beginning...

Courts can look at legislative intent, etc. But they aren't supposed to meddle in statistics, which was the red herring thrown in the mix by the county.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Tvandermyde]

colt-45, on 19 January 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 19 January 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Gov. Thompson was in the moot curt session and helped with the amici brief from thenmanufacturers.

I spoke with him today and he thinks it went very well

They have several options at this point:

1. 2A ruling
2. Remand for a development of a better record
3. Accept the preemption argument and kick it

witch one is the best and witch one is the worst out of all three Todd?

I know I'm not Todd

The best and least likely outcome would be a 2A decision. It would give us precedent for future cases.

The problem with this case is that there is a huge procedural problem. These issues couldn't possibly be resolved on a 2-615 motion, if the judge thought that the complaint was defective, the plaintiff could have amended the complaint.

The other problem is that the statute is void for vagueness. The court could invalidate it without ever reaching a 2A issue easily.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk



you're right I'm better looking


there are pros and cons to each. We could get a 2A ruling that ignore's Heller's plain language and says handguns in the home. But this ordiance presents problems for that.

Chief Justice Kilbride's question about the Glock is telling, the assertion is that Their ordinance bans the very gun the Supreme court said he could have. Those two points can not be resolved easily.

So we could get a 2A ruling that says ARs are bad. Or get one that says ordinance to broad try again. It is the one most frought with danger for us.

I was fit to be tied about the leigislative findings till Hallbrokk final used my analogy that what if they said the world was flat to justify something? But I do think we missed opportunities for low hanging fruit to knock out of the park.

On the remand, we start over, maybe another amended complaint and this becomes, Illinois' version of Nordyke and a worse decision gets ahead of us in federal court and gets a bad ruling.

On the preemption arguement, it gives the Court a way out. That is why we fashoned it. Not knowing if we got the 4 or not, we wanted to point out that the ordinance even scoops up hunting guns, it is that broad. And that they can not regulate huntig dats, seasons, type or game or bag limits and they can not regulate the guns used in the pursuit there of.

Now you can hunt Coyotes with a 50 bmg if you like. An AR or AK. You can hunt squirels with a Glock 40 and 15 round mag. You can hunt snow geese with a benelli M1 super 90 with a 9 shot tube. the fact is, there is not a firearm made, that there is not a season where it is legal to use.

it is an out, and it would be most disasterous to the other side as it takes out Chicago, Cook, Oak Park, Aurora and others.

We will then have a fight in the legislature over the Wildlife code. The place where we remain strong, and they do not have the mere 60 or 30 to change the statutes.

They also will have a tough fight for what limited rule making they have and I believe we can kill what ever they propose.

But again they need to deal with Kalidimos and get rid of that pink elephant. But they also have Aguilar coming up that has none of the 2-615 or proceedural rulings attached to it so we will get somehting on 2A no matter what.

I think Thomas could write it, maybe the Chief judge. Remember that they kicked Wilson back to the appelate court once before telling them to try again, they may not be interested in doing so again.

I dunno.

I could see them walking in after the hearing closing the door and the Chirf looking over his glasses saying we have 4 votes for a Consitutional ruling, or would you rathe rule on preemption and make it unanimous?

Before I would have said we will see a ruling in 90 days gove or take. But given Aguilar, I can see them holding this up till the make both rulings. Aguilar may give us some insight.

I would also note that in the arguements, no one was hostile to our side and pressing us for justification. They challenged the other side on issues. Even Burke and Freeman were looking for a way out. Tiess or what ever her name is was looking to procedures and she never got off that.

name me one time a judge got hostile or evenr arguementative with us? Just the issue of 2-615 proceedure was the most disscussed.

I do not see this going well for Cook County, hense why we worked hard on amici and cut it up into bite sized peices. Seems my idea about the Wildlife Code got noticed. If so, then I hope the legislative brief on Kalidimos makes it too.

my fingers are crossed

Edited by Tvandermyde, 19 January 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[NakPPI]

Aguilar... The case argued by a public defender that got his license in 2008... Everyone should listen to that appellate oral argument to see how GOOD this argument was.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[lockman]

When Cook County's council was questioned about a gun becoming illegal after the fact due to magazine capacity changes, he just didn't get it or was evading a direct answer. I though it was humorous at that point because Jim Thompson seated can be seen shaking his head and smiling at councils attempt to answer the justices question.

[Pinto]

Hello fellas. Any of you have any idea what's going on with this case? Timeline perhaps?

This is my first post and, to be honest, I'm mainly interested in this issue, as it affects me greatly. So any advice, by someone who's not simply guessing, would be most appreciated.

[Bud]

Pinto, on 30 March 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Hello fellas. Any of you have any idea what's going on with this case? Timeline perhaps?

This is my first post and, to be honest, I'm mainly interested in this issue, as it affects me greatly. So any advice, by someone who's not simply guessing, would be most appreciated.

In a way it affects all of us. The folks involved will post, usually within minutes of it actually happening, any changes

Welcome aboard and don't hesitate to join in the discussions.