Jump to content


Photo

Cook County gun/ammo tax. (Audio link)


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,352 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 16 January 2020 - 09:25 PM

First ..If this was posted already plz link where and delete this. I couldn't find and thought I was following most of the cases. I was shocked at what the State thinks about the 2nd. That's why NY case is so important  and shouldn't be moot. I thought our side did really well.

 

Anyway here you go...

 

From FFL of Illinois FB page. I cant get a link to there page..

 

Earlier this week oral arguments were heard in the case against the Cook County gun/ammo tax. . . .

\

 

 

https://multimedia.i...T04PDYTWZq37BDs


Edited by Molly B., 16 January 2020 - 11:07 PM.


#2 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,643 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 17 January 2020 - 07:19 AM

Rather than listen to an hour of audio, can you summarize the money quotes and time?

 

(i.e. at 47:29, the state says...) 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I'm lazy. :)  And posting money quotes and times helps increase the impact of your post. 


Edited by BobPistol, 17 January 2020 - 07:20 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#3 POAT54

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,630 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 17 January 2020 - 09:09 AM

Well the short version is Crook county can tax anyone for anything and spend the tax anyway they want. As the county's lawyer said the right to bear arms is NOT a right.

 

Citizen pick up that can.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#4 Bo69

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 14

Posted 17 January 2020 - 05:10 PM

Illinois just uses the working citizens as their personal ATMS

#5 ddan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 14

Posted 18 January 2020 - 12:29 PM

Highlights, cleaned-up audio, and a transcript here:
https://blog.maxonsh...ms-and-ammo-tax

The good guys had a good day

Edited by ddan, 18 January 2020 - 12:31 PM.


#6 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,403 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 18 January 2020 - 02:43 PM

Well the short version is Crook county can tax anyone for anything and spend the tax anyway they want. As the county's lawyer said the right to bear arms is NOT a right.
 
Citizen pick up that can.


More specifically they were arguing that it’s only right so those can be trampled. Fundamental rights are sacred and that is not a fundamental right. They seem to forget the McDonald case which kind of solidified the second amendment as a fundamental right by incorporation via the 14th amendment.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#7 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,352 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 23 January 2020 - 04:12 PM

For those that want a breakdown. Link from Illinois Carry FB. 

 

https://blog.maxonsh...-T-TQEaQoZ0wu1k


Edited by Sweeper13, 23 January 2020 - 04:12 PM.


#8 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,902 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 24 January 2020 - 11:41 PM

They will tax Catholics next. Millions of those wallets in Crook County!

#9 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,643 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 25 January 2020 - 09:05 AM

The cook county tax is all about crony enrichment, nothing more.  More money for cronies. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#10 RANDY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 07

Posted 25 January 2020 - 09:50 AM

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.


One persons paranoia is another persons situational awareness.

Maybe it is time to remove immunity from all public officials and be able to hold them fully accountable for their actions.


#11 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,091 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 27 January 2020 - 07:48 AM

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.


"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#12 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 28 January 2020 - 07:49 AM

They will tax Catholics next. Millions of those wallets in Crook County!

I used that analogy, it’s like a special tax on bibles and using that for the “general fund”. 
 

which makes an interesting case where FOID and CCL funds get swept into a general fund as a source of revenue. What’s the difference between the counties special tax or fee and the way the state is treating it with the license fees?
 


Void the FOID!

#13 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 28 January 2020 - 12:49 PM

Is there a way to see what cases they made reference to, like if they had to file a brief or something? 
The gentleman brought up a case or two but I only heard one name, not the whole case name. 


Void the FOID!

#14 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,902 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 28 January 2020 - 02:35 PM

Is there a way to see what cases they made reference to, like if they had to file a brief or something? 
The gentleman brought up a case or two but I only heard one name, not the whole case name.


If they only reference the case name in oral argument, the case is from the briefs.

#15 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,171 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 19 March 2020 - 10:37 AM

Appellate Court rules in favor of Cook Co.

 

 

Attached File  Cook Ammo Tax Lawsuit.pdf   87.35KB   136 downloads


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#16 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,663 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 19 March 2020 - 10:54 AM

shocker


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#17 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,902 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 19 March 2020 - 11:01 AM

Was there ever any doubt?

#18 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,658 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 19 March 2020 - 11:35 AM

Where do they take it next?



#19 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 19 March 2020 - 11:44 PM

 

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

 

 

That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.

 

I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.


Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 19 March 2020 - 11:47 PM.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
 
"One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest." —Me
 
"Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck. —Samurai proverb
 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." —Robert Heinlein
 
"I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist." —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers
 
Posted Image     

#20 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Members
  • 3,902 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 20 March 2020 - 08:55 AM

What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?

#21 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,073 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 20 March 2020 - 03:32 PM

What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?

Be careful !!  You don't want to give them any more ideas, do you ?? :frantics:  :pinch:


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#22 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 20 March 2020 - 03:56 PM

 

What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?

Be careful !!  You don't want to give them any more ideas, do you ?? :frantics:  :pinch:

 

 

That's actually something that I HOPE some idiots in a municipal or state-level government tries, because once that is shot down as unconstitutional, then there will be precedent that any such tax on a Constitutional right or freedom would be similarly unconstitutional, and could be used to end this kind of stupidity once and for all.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
 
"One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest." —Me
 
"Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck. —Samurai proverb
 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." —Robert Heinlein
 
"I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist." —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers
 
Posted Image     

#23 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,652 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 23 March 2020 - 08:40 AM

 

 

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

 

 

That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.

 

I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.

 

But how long will that all take? It's death by 1000 cuts.



#24 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 24 March 2020 - 03:24 PM

 

 

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.

 

 

That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.

 

I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.

 

 

Our supreme court considers it a right.

Johnson vs ISP

 

"Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court:  We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii)."

 

 

http://illinoiscarry...79#entry1246315

 


Void the FOID!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users