Jump to content

TargetCollector

Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

435 profile views

TargetCollector's Achievements

Member

Member (2/24)

  1. Based on the above analyses, it sounds like these petitions for cert are certainly more likely to be accepted than the previous Bevis petition from December. That said, more likely than "snowball's chance in heck" doesn't narrow it down much. It has been repeated multiple times that SCOTUS is very unlikely to take anything related to these cases or any others until the final decisions on the facts have been reached, so do we have any examples of successful petitions to overturn a stay such as Barnett is now seeking? I can't imagine this is the first, and thus far, only argument ever made to the supreme court for an interlocutory appeal due to a lower courts disregard for precedent.
  2. I've repeatedly voiced my concern here about our side treating Bruen as a final and complete answer to all our woes, and I still see no evidence that it will turn out to be any more potent in the real world than Heller or McDonald. We knew the same lower courts that twisted the words of those previous rulings would do the same thing with Bruen, and they have. We knew we would have to run it back up to SCOTUS, and that's what's happening. People here claimed that we would get much swifter answers from SCOTUS as a result of Bruen, and that remains to be seen. I hope I'm wrong, and I will continue to donate to fund these suits regardless, but I also think this needs to be a wake-up call for the crowd that has considered court actions to be our only viable move. We need to get back in the game on a legislative and PR front to have a chance of even stopping the infringements where they now stand.
  3. If I understood the arguments correctly a few months back, they took the entirety of the 2A question including the TRO straight to the 7th as a result of the back and forth with Justice Barrett.
  4. I asked for no special treatment or negotiation with the other side. I asked you to recognize that some of this community are gun rights supporters who don't happen to agree with a number of your other positions. I don't think I'm asking a lot to ask that folks consider keeping their conversations related to gun rights on a gun rights forum. You want to bring up a bunch of unrelated politics, take it to the back room. Leave a little room for people to disagree with you on some things while agreeing with you on all the things that brought us here in the first place.
  5. I can see there's no convincing you of anything. Just know that there are independents like myself who categorically disagree with the recent trends in the Republican party and its candidates while also wholeheartedly supporting gun rights. I have contributed thousands of dollars to ISRA and SAF to support cases like these, have called my state rep and senator each time these bills make it to the floor, filed the witness slips and spent time taking skeptical friends to the range to educate them about what these things actually do instead of what they've seen in the movies and news. Consistently, though, you make it sound as if I'm automatically your enemy because I'm not a MAGA Republican or anything close to it. You're assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with ALL of your positions is therefore your enemy and that you don't need their support. That frankly sounds a lot like Hillary in 2016.
  6. I'm advocating for bringing more folks into the fold and engaging people who agree with us on guns and who could be advocating legislatively for our cause. In particular, I'm advocating for breaking down the perceived barrier between folks here and any and all gun owners who don't happen to also be died-in-the-wool conservatives in every regard.
  7. Got it, nothing to do, nothing to change, everything is fine, the courts will just magically save all of us. Glad we've got folks like you doing so much to help the cause by literally just sitting there waiting for the good news to come in. Just like when it came in in January that the AWB didn't pass or when dealer licensing never passed or when we never had to deal with silly red-flag laws in this state or when the FOID requirement was dropped as unconstitutional ... I'm glad you guys at least live in a state where the courts always solve our problems in a timely enough manner to deter such nonsense, because it sure isn't Illinois.
  8. Rhetoric like that is exactly what I'm talking about. Who cares what they think of Trump? For that matter, why are gun rights advocates supporting him when he was one of the worst republican presidents for our cause in the last 50 years?! The liberals who buy AR's might prefer you personally not own one, but they also don't generally support these kinds of blanket bans, and we're making it look like they have no choice because "it's simply too dangerous to vote for anyone else". Help them move their party in a better direction, so that they can continue to believe in their other causes without having to give up their common ground with us.
  9. I think this is where I fundamentally disagree. Judges misapplying Bruen is exactly the same thing as judges not wanting to accept the ramifications of Heller and McDonald as regarding the previous "dangerous and unusual" test and pretending that intermediate scrutiny is what those rulings intended. Under the new "text and tradition" standard they'll simply continue to claim it means they can ban everything that didn't exist in 1789, and then SCOTUS will have to issue yet-another ruling explaining the perfectly-clear explanation of Bruen, which will itself subsequently be miss-applied, quite intentionally. The current remediations from SCOTUS may keep things moving a little faster, but we're just going to end up with another full SCOTUS opinion that finds AWB's based on these features list and limitations is unconstitutional, at which point they'll simply try a different, but functionally-equivalent set of features in a new law, knowing full-well it won't pass muster but hoping to get a new court before that point, all while they continue to enforce it for the years they'll be able to keep this rolling through its appeals. Even assuming I'm 100% incorrect on this, what exactly is the harm in bringing more potentially like-minded folks into the fold? Why not fight on both fronts instead of putting all our eggs into the court basket?
  10. They may very well, which is exactly why we need to separate our gun rights advocacy from general conservative political values and help folks like that start to shape the opinions and policies of their elected officials. It means a lot more to this overwhelmingly democratic legislature to hear from overwhelmingly democratic voters that they disagree with a given path than to continue hearing from the same group of folks they regard as "gun nuts" over and over. In the meantime, I too have had a number of conversations with democrat gun owners and other liberals who are curious to probe my interest in gun rights. They always mention at some point, "I can't believe you're able to intelligently discuss this and actually make me question some of my beliefs! I expected this to be a foaming-at-the-mouth, conservative rant once I learned you own guns!"
  11. That's exactly the kind of thing I mean. "The Left" is not a singular block, nor is every liberal hopelessly devoted to the precise image of democratic party politicians. There's a large and growing group of liberal individuals who have taken up gun ownership for precisely the same reasons many of us have: recognizing that government at best has limits in its ability to protect and at worst, needs the threat of an armed populace to keep it honest. Those are people we fundamentally agree with who still won't support us as long as we're writing both them and their concerns off in exactly the way you seem to be doing. If we truly believe in fighting for these rights, then we'll do so, even if and when it means challenging our own self-image and identity as "gun owners" or "gun rights advocates" having to fit a particular mold. Prove their prejudice against us wrong by dropping your own against them.
  12. I agree wholeheartedly that giving up on this state and the political process is demoralizing and a recipe for disaster. Treating Bruen as a panacea the same way we thought Heller and McDonald would dramatically shift the landscape is equally undermining of our efforts. People's views on gun rights are shifting across the country at the same time they're questioning the legitimacy of the current courts more than they have in decades. If we continue to insist on the moral high-ground of "shall not be infringed" as the basis for all our efforts and continue to put on a "molon labe" exterior while publicly embracing a bunch of unrelated conservative agenda, we're going to permanently lose the ability to influence and include the recent and rapidly-growing liberal base of gun owners. We can choose to realize and react to it, now, or we can wait until the courts either favor the other side, are undermined or are outright ignored, at which point, we'll have no ammunition left to save ourselves, both literally and figuratively.
  13. This is what our side said pre-Bruen and celebrated Bruen for. How many layers of "no we really mean it this time!" bouncing back from SCOTUS do folks expect is the magic number of times before these courts just decide they can't fight it anymore? The answer is always going to be "n+1" where n is the number of times SCOTUS has already had to scold lower courts. The state and these courts have proven again and again that they'll tweak one small piece of the law and send it back through years of bad lower court rulings on an obviously-unconstitutional law because there's just nothing stopping them from doing so and no punishment of them or compensation to us, even when they're eventually found to have been violating our rights for years or even decades. I'm more convinced than ever that while we can't give up on these court cases, we REALLY have to stop this habit of pinning the entirety of our future rights on them.
  14. Allow? More like "welcome". In the meantime, I can just see the cases that would follow from this where we file either in the "correct" county challenging the requirement to post in said county and the judge there denies, or we file in an "incorrect" county, the judge there agrees and the 7th simply exposes their belly to the state for a nice scratch as they always do.
  15. That quote from Pritzker shows exactly their intent with this thing, no matter what they claimed in committee or floor debate. His statement about "predatory actions by the firearms industry" in particular shows they see the entire firearm industry and gun-owning public as the real problem, and this has nothing to do with a few bad actors, of which they've never bothered to put forward a single real-world example.
×
×
  • Create New...