Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
774 replies to this topic

#751 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 August 2019 - 02:31 PM

Pondering this case for a moment, I'm left with two questions.
  • Is "semi-automatic" a feature? Or does its existence create an entirely different class of weapons?
  • A bolt-action rifle is certainly a common firearm, but there are two conditions for self-defense, per the court: suitable and common. Is a bolt-action rifle suitable for self-defense?
The semi vs. bolt example above was my own, merely to illustrate the court's logic, but the court side-stepped arguments about specific features to focus on the more general concept of features. Should courts be determining how suitable a feature is for self-defense? That's a technical discussion they're unlikely to decide well, no matter how many amicus briefs they get supplying accurate facts.

The common law principle for the use of force has basically been "proportional to the threat and sufficient to overcome it." If criminals have semi-autos (and they will), is a bolt-action proportional to the threat and sufficient to overcome it, especially since criminals tend to work in teams against individual defenders?
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#752 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,220 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 29 August 2019 - 03:05 PM

If criminals have semi-autos (and they will), is a bolt-action proportional to the threat and sufficient to overcome it, especially since criminals tend to work in teams against individual defenders?

 

I believe the fact that no modern day military or police force is still using bolt actions for general self defense definatively answers that question.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#753 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,897 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 29 August 2019 - 04:05 PM

Chicago Tribune article on the decision

https://www.chicagot...sa6a-story.html

Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of lawsuit challenging Cook County’s assault weapons ban

A federal appeals court in Chicago on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged a ban on assault rifles in Cook County, saying the arguments were nearly identical to a previous failed suit brought against Highland Park.

In a 17-page ruling, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote the plaintiffs “have not come forward with a compelling reason to revisit our previous decision” in the Highland Park case, which set a legal precedent that was left in place when the Supreme Court refused to take up the issue in 2015.

The lawsuit filed by gun owners Troy Edhlund and Matthew Wilson contended that Cook County’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines was written so ambiguously that it could be broadly applied to almost any semi-automatic weapon, which is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In arguments before the 7th Circuit earlier this year, their attorneys said the lower court erred in dismissing the suit on the basis of the Highland Park decision, especially given that the “type, magnitude and frequency” of criminal threats faced by the 5 million residents of Cook County are vastly different than those in the affluent North Shore suburb.

The three-judge appellate panel, however, said the Highland Park decision didn’t take crime rates into account at all.

“Our discussion of self-defense focused instead on the availability of other means for citizens to defend themselves,” stated the opinion by Judges Kenneth Ripple, David Hamilton and Amy St. Eve. “This is a question answered by the particular locality’s laws, not by its crime rates.”

The ruling marks the latest in a 12-year legal saga for Edhlund and Wilson, who first challenged the Cook County ban in 2007 in state court. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s dismissal in 2012.

The suit was refiled in federal court in 2017 but dismissed last year by U.S. District Judge Manish Shah, records show.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has turned decidedly more conservative since the high court declined to take up the Highland Park case four years ago.

At that time, two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, both said they would have heard the case and struck down the ban.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#754 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,105 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 29 August 2019 - 10:01 PM

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.



#755 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 August 2019 - 11:41 PM

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.


For an AWB challenge, though, I don't think this is the case to do it. Even with a favorable court, asking SCOTUS straight out if a feature ban is unconstitutional is unlikely to go our way.

I think a better question would be whether a feature ban of popular and common engineering improvements to firearms interferes unreasonably with an individual's right to keep and bear arms by requiring gun owners to possess only obsolete technology. This case isn't framed that way, but maybe different lawyers could reframe it for a SCOTUS appeal, if reframing is legitimate at this point.

It might be worth asking SCOTUS if "feeling safer" is a compelling government interest, since feelings are unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary, and should not form the justification of any laws, much less one potentially restricting a constitutionally protected civil liberty. I'm not sure this case is the one to do that, either, since I don't think a favorable decision on that question would necessarily change the outcome of the case overall.

As always, IANAL.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#756 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 30 August 2019 - 05:18 AM

This case asked CA7 to overturn itself in Friedman. "Materially indistinguishable" from Friedman v. Highland Park. That's why it's an unpublished, unsigned opinion. Didn't create any precedent, just followed current. The only way that will happen is to rehear en banc. That's the procedure for reversing circuit precedent. Otherwise it must go to SCOTUS. Depending on what SCOTUS does with NYSPRA, as in if it decides strict scrutiny is proper for 2A actions, then this will be vacated, remanded, and no possible way it will survive strict scrutiny. CA7 will have to reverse itself. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#757 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 30 August 2019 - 07:20 AM

This was in my list of suggested news articles by Google this morning. It was at the very top. https://www.newsweek...es-guns-1456895 Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#758 Capt_Destro

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,782 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 12

Posted 31 August 2019 - 02:57 PM

This was in my list of suggested news articles by Google this morning. It was at the very top. https://www.newsweek...es-guns-1456895 Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

The comments man...

 

That Fox Free guy is a nut job.


When picking a firearm, you want one that is like a heavy chick. A gun that is reliable, doesn't mind getting rough, and one that goes bang every time. What's the point of having something pretty looking it isn't up for the task?

#759 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 01 September 2019 - 01:40 AM

I didn't get that far. I rarely read the comments. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#760 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,562 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 02 September 2019 - 07:07 AM

Horrible decision.



#761 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,483 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 02 September 2019 - 08:09 AM

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.

For an AWB challenge, though, I don't think this is the case to do it. Even with a favorable court, asking SCOTUS straight out if a feature ban is unconstitutional is unlikely to go our way.I think a better question would be whether a feature ban of popular and common engineering improvements to firearms interferes unreasonably with an individual's right to keep and bear arms by requiring gun owners to possess only obsolete technology. This case isn't framed that way, but maybe different lawyers could reframe it for a SCOTUS appeal, if reframing is legitimate at this point.It might be worth asking SCOTUS if "feeling safer" is a compelling government interest, since feelings are unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary, and should not form the justification of any laws, much less one potentially restricting a constitutionally protected civil liberty. I'm not sure this case is the one to do that, either, since I don't think a favorable decision on that question would necessarily change the outcome of the case overall.As always, IANAL.

Excellent! Right on the money! I think the lefties' most likely goal will be trying to amend the state constitution to restrict the scope of the state militia and to specify what is to be brought in the event of being called up to it. Get your Kentucky rifles ready, gentlemen!

Edited by 2A4Cook, 02 September 2019 - 08:10 AM.


#762 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,814 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 02 September 2019 - 09:12 AM

Can't get it in front of SCOTUS without first getting a sucky decision from the 7th.

For an AWB challenge, though, I don't think this is the case to do it. Even with a favorable court, asking SCOTUS straight out if a feature ban is unconstitutional is unlikely to go our way.I think a better question would be whether a feature ban of popular and common engineering improvements to firearms interferes unreasonably with an individual's right to keep and bear arms by requiring gun owners to possess only obsolete technology. This case isn't framed that way, but maybe different lawyers could reframe it for a SCOTUS appeal, if reframing is legitimate at this point.It might be worth asking SCOTUS if "feeling safer" is a compelling government interest, since feelings are unreasonable, capricious, and arbitrary, and should not form the justification of any laws, much less one potentially restricting a constitutionally protected civil liberty. I'm not sure this case is the one to do that, either, since I don't think a favorable decision on that question would necessarily change the outcome of the case overall.As always, IANAL.

It's a broad rifle ban using features as an excuse. Not a feature ban.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#763 Hap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,983 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 02 September 2019 - 04:31 PM

Sooner or later - and I'm betting it's going to be sooner - one of these cases will bubble up to SCOTUS, and, with the current composition of court, they'll grant cert and we will win. How much we win depends on whether RBG is still on the Court at that point. If she's still there, the ruling will be as narrow as possible. If not, it may be less narrow. But we'll get what we need.

 

I'll go just a little farther. What do we need? Most of all, we need some clarity on what the Heller "common use" test means and how it is to be applied. That would suffice for 2A purposes.

 

But we also need to put a stake in the heart of the insane emotion-based "reasoning" behind Friedman. Not just for the sake of the 2nd Amendment, but because allowing this sort of pandering to the fears of the ignorant to take root in our jurisprudence will ultimately destroy our justice system. If we can't kill this line of thought now, we will see a lot more of it, and not just in 2A cases.


Ad utrumque paratus


#764 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 03 September 2019 - 01:26 PM

In my mail today:

As expected, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against us on August 29th, 2019, in the Matthew Wilson, et al., v. Cook County, et al., court case.

This case dealt with Cook County’s ban on large capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms. The same court ruled in a similar fashion on the Friedman v. City of Highland Park case. Courts do not like to reverse themselves and so we are not surprised that the court ruled against us on the Matthew Wilson, et al., v. Cook County, et al., court case.

We will now appeal this case to the Supreme Court of the United States. If you recall, the McDonald case followed the same pattern.

This case, like others, may take a long time and will take substantial resources as well. If you are able, please consider contributing to our Legal Assistance Committee. Please go to our Legal Assistance Committee page and make a donation today.


The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#765 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 03 September 2019 - 01:44 PM

SCOTUS won't touch this likely.  Especially with RBG still around.  



#766 Hap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,983 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 03 September 2019 - 01:53 PM

SCOTUS won't touch this likely.  Especially with RBG still around.  

I look forward to reading her dissent.


Ad utrumque paratus


#767 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,220 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 03 September 2019 - 02:57 PM

SCOTUS won't touch this likely.  Especially with RBG still around.  

 

I believe that fully depends on the outcome of the NYSPRA case, if the conservative majority goes on record that the 2nd is a right subject to at minimum strict scrutiny then they have put that conservative majority between a rock and a hard place to continue to deny hearing obvious infringements against the 2nd.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#768 Frizzytryan

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 18

Posted 03 September 2019 - 03:55 PM

People vs Webb, states that an outright ban is unconstitutional, simple because an item (tazer in this case) is readily available and very common in the marketplace. How does this ban hold up legally? This exact verbage is stated in Justice Burkes decision.

#769 cherryriver

    Actual Member

  • Members
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 08

Posted 09 September 2019 - 12:34 PM

Should this ever, after several years, make it to the US Supreme Court, President Warren's two new justices will send it to a quick defeat.

Besides, relying on someone wearing a black robe to read and apply the law as written is a lost feature of a previous USA.


Winter may change to summer, but the silly season goes on and on...

#770 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,605 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 09 September 2019 - 03:28 PM

Should this ever, after several years, make it to the US Supreme Court, President Warren's two new justices will send it to a quick defeat.

Besides, relying on someone wearing a black robe to read and apply the law as written is a lost feature of a previous USA.

 

Bite your tongue !! :pinch: :getlost: :no:


“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

#771 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,096 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 05 December 2019 - 01:12 PM

In my mail today:

...
Last Thursday, the ISRA appealed the Wilson v Cook County Case to the SCOTUS. The technical name for this is Petition for Writ of Certiorari (informally called Cert Petition). We have not heard whether the Supreme Court will hear the case but we should know soon. I will keep you informed.
...


Does anyone know a docket number? I haven't found anything on supremecourt.gov.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#772 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,220 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 05 December 2019 - 01:51 PM

In my mail today:

...
Last Thursday, the ISRA appealed the Wilson v Cook County Case to the SCOTUS. The technical name for this is Petition for Writ of Certiorari (informally called Cert Petition). We have not heard whether the Supreme Court will hear the case but we should know soon. I will keep you informed.
...


Does anyone know a docket number? I haven't found anything on supremecourt.gov.

 

 

https://www.supremec...lic\19-704.html


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#773 newshooter

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 19

Posted Yesterday, 01:00 PM

In my mail today:

...
Last Thursday, the ISRA appealed the Wilson v Cook County Case to the SCOTUS. The technical name for this is Petition for Writ of Certiorari (informally called Cert Petition). We have not heard whether the Supreme Court will hear the case but we should know soon. I will keep you informed.
...


Does anyone know a docket number? I haven't found anything on supremecourt.gov.
 
https://www.supremec...lic\19-704.html

IANAL, but the petition linked there makes a good case. With the AR style rifles now being one of the most prevalent rifles sold in the US, the common use argument makes sense (for example, living in Chicago, I would rather be not be a shotgun going against an AR in a home invasion scenario, especially with the existing shotgun restrictions. Most YouTube searches for "best home defense weapon" will come up with either an AR, or an AR pistol given the short barrel makes more sense in confined quarters (the latter I think we can agree is an untested gray area in Chicago given the vague statute and legally untested state preemption).

#774 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,779 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted Yesterday, 02:52 PM

The only advantage and disadvantage of a AR is penetration.

AR as home defense is my last choice.   

Shotgun can cover a very large area.

Pistol can shoot just as accurately as a rifle in a home. 

 

Rifles do this to plate steel (non AR500) the TV, Wall, refrigerator, isn't going to stop this. 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20191204_114557.jpg

You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#775 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,220 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted Yesterday, 03:09 PM

The only advantage and disadvantage of a AR is penetration.

AR as home defense is my last choice.   

Shotgun can cover a very large area.

Pistol can shoot just as accurately as a rifle in a home. 

 

Rifles do this to plate steel (non AR500) the TV, Wall, refrigerator, isn't going to stop this. 

 

 

A very interesting read on penetration.

 

http://preparedgunow...ration-testing/


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users