Cook County Court upholds gun ban

[GarandFan]

In short, their reasoning is based on the erroneous notion that semi auto guns are practically machine guns on a somewhat lessor scale. It would seem that the court has "bought into" the idea that "assault weapons" are somehow more deadly due to the aesthetic features they usually have and which have been written into the ordinance.

 

Yes, basically, that's what it seems to me. Josh Sugarmann (the lying *******) must be elated.

 

Frankly, I have long suspected that such an approach might actually backfire on the gun controllers. If "we" are to accept the argument that semiauto guns are equal to auto guns ... it might very well be that there are stronger arguments for legalizing auto guns than there are for prohibiting semiauto guns.

[GarandFan]

My question is this. The reasoning and decision by the justices is due to what? Liberal bias? An attempt to legislate from the bench? Outright court tampering from another official? Or are they just afraid of the "boogie man" - whereas "assault weapons" are just evil?

 

Those are all interesting questions, but they are irrelevant to the task at hand. I guarantee you that Wilson's attorney will not go before the IL Supreme Court and argue "the IL appellate court judges are liberally biased and are legislating from the bench." Their decision, however it was made, will be dismantled by fact and prior legal and historical precedent.

 

Typically, "justice" is the name applied to those sitting on the US or state Supreme Courts. So these folks in the IL appellate court are "judges."

[Tvandermyde]

Thus far in my reading of this IL appellate court decision, I have found what I think is the crux of their decision ... and it is lifted directly from a California appellate case called "People v James" (challenging the CA "assault weapons" ban):

 

"While the fully-automatic nature of machine guns renders such a weapon arguably more dangerous and unusual than a semiautomatic assault weapon, that observation does not negate the fact that assault weapons, like machine guns, are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and likewise fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use." [James, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 586]

 

 

So in effect, what this does is equate semiauto guns to full auto guns. But it is clear that full auto guns have long been handled differently by federal law ... precisely, full auto guns are subject to NFA of 1934, whereas semiauto guns are not. State appellate courts, whether in CA or IL, cannot simply equate full- and semi-auto guns. That is flatly unprecedented and incorrect.

 

It is also absurd for them to hold that semiauto guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens. Correct me if I am wrong, but AR-type firearms are the best-selling type of firearm in the United States. Moreover, those sales have overwhelmingly involved buyers who have passed NICS background checks (so they are decidedly being purchased by law-abiding citizens).

 

So what we have here is "the best selling rifle in America today" (NSSF statement) being purchased overwhelmingly by law-abiding citizens (subject to and passing criminal background checks). How the preceding facts comport with the IL appellate court's dependence on "assault weapons ... are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and likewise fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use" is completely beyond me, and I suspect, completely beyond any rational person.

 

agreed there are several points on this to where they screw the pooch. But I think this idea that semi-autos that look like full autos, the VPOC approach, needs to be drop kicked right through the goal posts along with kaladimos.

 

The equal protection claim is another easy one to show that two of the same actions with just different stocks get someone treated differently.

[Buzzard]

Typically, "justice" is the name applied to those sitting on the US or state Supreme Courts. So these folks in the IL appellate court are "judges."

 

Sorry. I ran spell check and thought it was good to go. I guess I need parapraxis check.

[mstrat]

It's interesting the court brought up Marzzarella (3rd federal circuit) as an example/justification for applying intermediate scrutiny. At issue there was whether the requirement of serial numbers offends the second amendment. The court concluded intermediate scrutiny was appropriate because "the burden imposed by the law did not severely limit the possession of firearms."

 

There is a very bright line between requiring serial numbers on guns, and banning the guns altogether. Unreal.

 

This is what really burns me. When I walk into a gun store, between 50-75% of the rifles on the rack are off limits to me because I live in Cook county.

 

How on earth is this NOT a severely limiting what I can possess?

 

(still reading, but this is just ridiculous)

[Howard Roark]

Cook will have trouble with this on appeal. I think this is only a temporary setback. Guns in common use are in common use. As to the "Dangerous and unusual" argument, all guns are dangerous if misused or mishandled, ... but are semi-auto pistols/rifles unusual? Obviously not.

 

This will just make the future win at a higher court that much sweeter. ISRA is going to appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary, that's what they said.

[Howard Roark]

Cook: "... there were more federally licensed gun dealers in Cook County than gas stations".

 

Wow, that's just terrible! Wouldn't the world be a better place if the number of federally license gun dealers was zero? Pffftt, but that is their logic. Their objective is reducing to zero the number of guns held by law-abiding citizens, in the **hope** there will be no guns for criminals/gang bangers.

[richp]

Hi,

 

I would hope that somewhere in the factual record of this case is:

 

1) A recounting of the number of states where semi-automatic firearms of the type in question are completely unregulated.

 

2) A summary of the number of states where ownership/possession of full automatic firearms is legal.

 

3) A statistical demonstration of how the crime rates in those states -- and most particularly criminal use of full automatic weapons in states where they are legal -- do not support the proposition that they should be banned as a crime prevention measure.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

[Gary]

I am hopeful that the courts do the right thing but it is really unsettling to me that when this comes down in our favor, what will it mean? It will mean that the people in Chicago will still have less rights than the rest of the state. I would rather and I am hopeful that we will engage in a court battle that should be a winner for us under McDonald that would provide greater rights for everyone and, by extension, to the city of Chicago as well. It seems that we are peeling an onion. Not that I am against the effort. It is just that I am impatient. I don't mind being last, but I would like to become a citizen before my time to meet my maker.

As an aside, has anyone suggested the possiblility of reduce the penalty for UUW to misdemeanor rather than it being a felony. In fact, why in the world is it a felony to not have a FOID card? That is a crime that can easily be committed because of a paperwork error rather than an intent to do harm to someone. I don't get it.

[Houndawg]

Hi,

 

I would hope that somewhere in the factual record of this case is:

 

1) A recounting of the number of states where semi-automatic firearms of the type in question are completely unregulated.

 

2) A summary of the number of states where ownership/possession of full automatic firearms is legal.

 

3) A statistical demonstration of how the crime rates in those states -- and most particularly criminal use of full automatic weapons in states where they are legal -- do not support the proposition that they should be banned as a crime prevention measure.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

 

That all needs to be in the amicus briefs. If the NRA or the ISRA submits a brief without this information, plus the fact that semi-auto firearms are commonly used for sporting purposes, then the brief writers need to be fired and beaten with a sack of doorknobs.

[GarandFan]

Hi,

 

I would hope that somewhere in the factual record of this case is:

 

1) A recounting of the number of states where semi-automatic firearms of the type in question are completely unregulated.

 

2) A summary of the number of states where ownership/possession of full automatic firearms is legal.

 

3) A statistical demonstration of how the crime rates in those states -- and most particularly criminal use of full automatic weapons in states where they are legal -- do not support the proposition that they should be banned as a crime prevention measure.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

 

That all needs to be in the amicus briefs. If the NRA or the ISRA submits a brief without this information, plus the fact that semi-auto firearms are commonly used for sporting purposes, then the brief writers need to be fired and beaten with a sack of doorknobs.

 

Perhaps you would like to write a brief.

[Howard Roark]

Hi,

 

I would hope that somewhere in the factual record of this case is:

 

1) A recounting of the number of states where semi-automatic firearms of the type in question are completely unregulated.

 

2) A summary of the number of states where ownership/possession of full automatic firearms is legal.

 

3) A statistical demonstration of how the crime rates in those states -- and most particularly criminal use of full automatic weapons in states where they are legal -- do not support the proposition that they should be banned as a crime prevention measure.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

 

That all needs to be in the amicus briefs. If the NRA or the ISRA submits a brief without this information, plus the fact that semi-auto firearms are commonly used for sporting purposes, then the brief writers need to be fired and beaten with a sack of doorknobs.

 

Perhaps you would like to write a brief.

 

 

I'll write the brief. It will be good, just you wait and see. Just kidding. Actually, I think we have some pretty good lawyers involved already, including Stephen Halbrook, IIRC. And ISRA is backing this one all the way. No need to draft random IllinoisCarry members to write the amicus brief.

 

(IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer)

[Houndawg]

Hi,

 

I would hope that somewhere in the factual record of this case is:

 

1) A recounting of the number of states where semi-automatic firearms of the type in question are completely unregulated.

 

2) A summary of the number of states where ownership/possession of full automatic firearms is legal.

 

3) A statistical demonstration of how the crime rates in those states -- and most particularly criminal use of full automatic weapons in states where they are legal -- do not support the proposition that they should be banned as a crime prevention measure.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

 

That all needs to be in the amicus briefs. If the NRA or the ISRA submits a brief without this information, plus the fact that semi-auto firearms are commonly used for sporting purposes, then the brief writers need to be fired and beaten with a sack of doorknobs.

 

Perhaps you would like to write a brief.

 

I'll leave the brief writing to the people who are fluent in lawyerese. I'll just advise and stand by with the sack of doorknobs.

[GarandFan]

I'll leave the brief writing to the people who are fluent in lawyerese. I'll just advise and stand by with the sack of doorknobs.

 

[Ashrak]

All efforts to protect and defend the individual right to defend ourselves must be left to others, who know best, to do for us.

 

Oh what an ugly irony that exists there.

[Federal Farmer]

All efforts to protect and defend the individual right to defend ourselves must be left to others, who know best, to do for us.

 

Oh what an ugly irony that exists there.

 

We all can't be lawyers. We live in a highly specialized society. When I have legal troubles I call on a specialist (lawyer). When the lawyer wants a web application that scours Cook County property tax records he calls on me.

[Gray Peterson]

http://www.state.il.us/court/images/Appellate.jpg

 

Guess where the 1st District Appellate Court is.

 

Is anyone really surprised at this ruling?

[Gray Peterson]

All efforts to protect and defend the individual right to defend ourselves must be left to others, who know best, to do for us.

 

Oh what an ugly irony that exists there.

 

You don't hire a person who specializes in plumbing to do electrical, unless he truly and with experience be shown to do both.

[junglebob]

How did the U.S. get started without all the founding fathers being lawyers?

[1957Human]

How did the U.S. get started without all the founding fathers being lawyers?

 

By "all" do you mean 100%? Because only 60% of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention were lawyers. Percentage wise, though, that's a lot more lawyers than are in the US House today. Only 38% of our current Representatives are lawyers. Guess if we want to find more "Founding Father" type of leaders, we need to elect more lawyers.

[Murf]

here it is the Court again ruled that semi-auto bans are ok in some twisted logic equating semi-autos with machineguns and using intermediate scrutiny

 

Even with intermediate scrutiny don't they have to prove that the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest?

 

Logically, the "important government interest" of such a ban should be to reduce violent crime.

 

2005 was the first full year before the ban:

In 2005, approximately 42% of the population of the State of Illinois lived in Cook County.

In 2005, approximately 61% of the violent crime in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

In 2005, approximately 58% of the murders in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

 

The Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban was adopted in Cook County in 2006.

 

2008 is the most recent year of the Uniform Crime Report available from the ISP:

In 2008, approximately 41% of the population of the State of Illinois lived in Cook County.

In 2008, approximately 61% of the violent crime in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

In 2008, approximately 74% of the murders in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

 

Looking at these numbers, my little monkey brain tells me that the ban did not reduce violent crime. (In fact, if the ban did anything at all, it made some people move away and increased the fatality rate of violent crime in Cook County.)

 

Is there something wrong with my reasoning?

[Howard Roark]

here it is the Court again ruled that semi-auto bans are ok in some twisted logic equating semi-autos with machineguns and using intermediate scrutiny

 

Even with intermediate scrutiny don't they have to prove that the law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest?

 

Logically, the "important government interest" of such a ban should be to reduce violent crime.

 

2005 was the first full year before the ban:

In 2005, approximately 42% of the population of the State of Illinois lived in Cook County.

In 2005, approximately 61% of the violent crime in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

In 2005, approximately 58% of the murders in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

 

The Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban was adopted in Cook County in 2006.

 

2008 is the most recent year of the Uniform Crime Report available from the ISP:

In 2008, approximately 41% of the population of the State of Illinois lived in Cook County.

In 2008, approximately 61% of the violent crime in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

In 2008, approximately 74% of the murders in the State of Illinois occurred in Cook County.

 

Looking at these numbers, my little monkey brain tells me that the ban did not reduce violent crime. (In fact, if the ban did anything at all, it made some people move away and increased the fatality rate of violent crime in Cook County.)

 

Is there something wrong with my reasoning?

 

You're counting good.

[Hatchet]

 

Is there something wrong with my reasoning?

yea, u have facts. no one believes that (or atleast the antis)...

[nocaster]

 

Is there something wrong with my reasoning?

yea, u have facts. no one believes that (or atleast the antis)...

 

 

Any word on whether the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal?

[USArmyRet]

Looks to me when RTC passes in Illinois, you who live in Chitown will have to carry a wheel gun..........

[GarandFan]

Or a semi with mag capacity equal to or less than 10 rounds.

[JR1987]

Not much of a surprise here.

 

Its easier to attack the "soft targets" than it is to really attack the problem.

 

The problem, obviously, is not guns. Its people. After all, a gun is nothing more than a piece of metal/wood that cannot be operated without some sort of human intervention.

 

Rather than spend my tax money pursuing criminals, giving them real trials without plea bargains, increasing and better training the police force, making citizens more aware, and starting cross community police programs, they do the easy thing.

 

"Guns are bad, make guns harder to get. Case closed".

 

Its just the "easy" and lazy solution.

 

Why really do work, when you can get paid to make people "feel" safer? I know I'm not safer. Last summer there was a shooting at the local bowling alley... No, some real things could be done to make this a safe place to live.

 

But that takes too much work, its not a money issue; cause they waste a lot debating and passing bills like this.

 

Its just the lazy solution. People "feel" better knowing that no one can "own" and "assault" rifle in Cook County. I tell you what, I can go get a PKM for 400 bucks this weekend, right here in Illinois. If I am a gang member... will I be going after the 800-1200 dollar AR15s on the market? heck no! I can get a real life machine gun for more than half off!

 

Just lazy politicians, and lazy citizens, not really caring about solving the problem.

 

Just like Daley making Chicago "a nicer place to live". No, you just are pushing the ghettos out of the city and into the suburbs. You didn't solve anything, in the grand scheme of things. You just make it look that way.

[Federal Farmer]

Looks to me when RTC passes in Illinois, you who live in Chitown will have to carry a wheel gun..........

 

We in Chicago aren't subject to the 'Blair Holt' 'Assault Weapons' Ban. In my household, we have several semi-automatic handguns registered and more on the way.

[Federal Farmer]

Or a semi with mag capacity equal to or less than 10 rounds.

 

12 or less in Chicago.

[USArmyRet]

Or a semi with mag capacity equal to or less than 10 rounds.

 

12 or less in Chicago.

 

Then my BDA 380s would be banned if I moved to Chitown?