Jump to content

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


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Happy New Year!

 

I spoke with lead counsel, Vic Quilici, and here is the update. Because of prior commitments in the Friedman case, the Wilson case moved somewhat slower. The Judge generously granted a continuance to the State’s Attorneys and the case is now set on the trial calendar for June of this year.

 

Depositions had to be taken of 9 expert witnesses in the case, and soon a pre-trial will be held.

 

In answer to the question regarding Ed Ronkowski, he was one of four attorneys on the case. He is no longer an attorney in Wilson. and is enjoying his retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

So, Friedman is done.

 

What's going on with Wilson?

 

The Cook County lawyers are obviously delighted with the Friedman ruling and trying to see how they can use it against Wilson. It's a scary time.

 

Besides that, next Court Date for Wilson is in just a few weeks as everyone prepares for the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Friedman Decision is a mixed bag of fruit, yes, two Judges made a decision and a Ruling that was unfavorable... but, one Judge also wrote a scathing Dissent, based on Precedent and SCOTUS Rulings. While some could say we lost, I on the other hand believe it is just another step towards victory, like in McDonald, Heller, Diggins, Gowder and Shepard/Moore. When you read the Dissent by the Honorable Judge Daniel Manion, every single word of it makes sense and is absolutely based in legal facts and Court Precedent. So, read the opinions / feelings and comfort seeking analogy in which Judge Easterbrook based his decision and ask yourself... what is correct, what is based on facts and legal precedent, it is obvious and that is why we will WIN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Friedman Decision is a mixed bag of fruit, yes, two Judges made a decision and a Ruling that was unfavorable... but, one Judge also wrote a scathing Dissent, based on Precedent and SCOTUS Rulings. While some could say we lost, I on the other hand believe it is just another step towards victory, like in McDonald, Heller, Diggins, Gowder and Shepard/Moore. When you read the Dissent by the Honorable Judge Daniel Manion, every single word of it makes sense and is absolutely based in legal facts and Court Precedent. So, read the opinions / feelings and comfort seeking analogy in which Judge Easterbrook based his decision and ask yourself... what is correct, what is based on facts and legal precedent, it is obvious and that is why we will WIN!

 

 

just hold this thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA probably will go for a fast petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari. I know from talking to my attorney in Wilson, lead counsel, that the County filed for a Stay & summary judgment, in the alternative. Our counsel will fight the County’s motion, but Wilson is literally being dragged down by the awful decision in the Friedman case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friendman is far from done

Would it be premature, then, to start researching parts for an AR build?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, the Judge in Wilson did not ask for any briefs but stated he had read the decision in the Friedman case and decided to “stay” the Wilson case, as requested by the County, until Friedman has been given a chance to possibly be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Friedman attorneys backed by NRA decided it would be best to pass on a Petition for a hearing en banc (Before the 7th Circuit judges) and, instead, petition the U.S. Supreme Court for Certiorari (for SCOTUS to decide the case). Wilson was continued by the Judge to October 1, 2015. That means Wilson is victimized by the adverse decision in Friedman. My counsel in the Wilson case is requesting that NRA file its petition for cert as soon as possible, although it has 90 days to do so.

In October of this year the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to grant or deny certiorari in cases petitioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When are these courts going to stop kicking the can???

I think there's a higher chance of scotus granting cert for Friedman since the case is simply about ownership and possession and not carrying in public. It also seems like a logical continuation of Heller and Mcdonad. "Okay so people have a right to own guns, now we just need to figure out which guns the right pertains to."

 

Im just guessing. I'm not a lawyer and I also didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When are these courts going to stop kicking the can???

I think there's a higher chance of scotus granting cert for Friedman since the case is simply about ownership and possession and not carrying in public. It also seems like a logical continuation of Heller and Mcdonad. "Okay so people have a right to own guns, now we just need to figure out which guns the right pertains to."

Im just guessing. I'm not a lawyer and I also didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

My concern is that SCOTUS has refused to take a lot of gun cases lately, and weren't some of them pertaining to AWBs? I really think that requesting an en banc hearing would've been better, since it would've been quicker and likely resulted in the overturning of the AWB.

 

If they take it, can we really rely on the SCOTUS ruling correctly? You have four justices definitely in favor (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) four definitely opposed (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan) and the wildcard that is Kennedy. All you need is Kennedy or even Roberts saying that these guns aren't covered and its game over, and not just for us but for NY, Maryland, California, and everywhere else inbetween.

 

Now if they do take it and rule correctly, I'll be very happy. But not only for us, but for people living in places like NYS. Personally I'd love to watch the response from the pols in NY as their precious NY SAFE Act is gutted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Heller decision pretty clearly states that it leaves lot of ground uncovered and that the court will need to revisit the subject. If the Court doesn't revisit the subject soon it's not clear why any legislative body should take any of the Court's edicts - and not just Heller and McDonald - seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Heller decision pretty clearly states that it leaves lot of ground uncovered and that the court will need to revisit the subject. If the Court doesn't revisit the subject soon it's not clear why any legislative body should take any of the Court's edicts - and not just Heller and McDonald - seriously.

I'm really curious why they haven't heard any gun cases lately. They certainly don't come up as often as other constitutional issues, which would make it seem that they warrant additional attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still have Kolbe v. O'Malley in Maryland and Haynie v. Harris in California percolating up through the courts. There are also a couple of other cases in the Northeast that are waiting for rehearings, I believe.

 

I think right now, a case involving "carry" will be taken up by SCOTUS before a case involving "arms", but it wouldn't shock me to see the court granting cert for both some time late this year or early next. Peruta is the most likely candidate for SCOTUS review once en banc at the 9th Circuit is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...