I just heard this on CBS2 News, Chicago
Judge agrees ban is unconstitutional
Grants temp restraining order
Deerfield "may" appeal
I sure hope no one up there disposed of their rifles!
Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:15 PM
I just heard this on CBS2 News, Chicago
Judge agrees ban is unconstitutional
Grants temp restraining order
Deerfield "may" appeal
I sure hope no one up there disposed of their rifles!
Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:21 PM
The scientific term on the street for this type of phenomenon is to be "slepped lahk theh wench dey iz."
Edited by Molly B., 12 June 2018 - 05:28 PM.
"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, 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."
“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 12 June 2018 - 05:28 PM
FANTASTIC!!
Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:34 PM
-Thomas
Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com www.gunrights4illinois.com @AlphaKoncepts
Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:36 PM
The scientific term on the street for this type of phenomenon is to be "slepped lahk theh wench dey iz."
Artistic edit Molly B.
Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:35 PM
Yahoo!
Posted 12 June 2018 - 05:38 PM
Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:08 PM
I sure hope no one up there disposed of their rifles!
Edited by DomG, 12 June 2018 - 06:09 PM.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus
NRA Life Member
ISRA
GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)
Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:16 PM
Great News!!!!!!
I.S.R.A. member
Gun Owners of America member
Piasa Rifle and Pistol club member
Illinois carry donating member
N.R.A. Endowment member
Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:27 PM
Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:27 PM
Posted 12 June 2018 - 06:41 PM
Now CHICAGO
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:00 PM
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:09 PM
WTG all of US. Awesome news!!!!!!!!! Congrats, let's keep our Constitutional Rights alive. Long live IC US US US US US US US
ISRA-Member, IC Supporter, FFL-IL Supporter
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:13 PM
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:18 PM
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"
Translation: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:19 PM
Now CHICAGO
It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus
NRA Life Member
ISRA
GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:43 PM
Now CHICAGO
It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but everything I have read leads me to understand the TRO was given because the law is in violation of the IL pre-emption law, not because it is unconstitutional.
Posted 12 June 2018 - 07:49 PM
Now CHICAGO
It would be interesting if even though allowed by Illinois law, pre-existing local AWBs (Chicago, Highland Park) we’re found to be unconstitutional. Seems like an awfully big can of worms to open up.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but everything I have read leads me to understand the TRO was given because the law is in violation of the IL pre-emption law, not because it is unconstitutional.
It's been since the complaint was first filed that I read it, but I believe the claim was that the ban wasn't a modification of the existing ordinance, but an entirely new ordinance.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus
NRA Life Member
ISRA
GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)
Posted 12 June 2018 - 08:13 PM
Edited by kwc, 12 June 2018 - 08:13 PM.
Posted 12 June 2018 - 08:15 PM
Was the TRO in response to plaintiffs in both lawsuits, 1. SAF+ISRA, and 2. NRA+GSL?
IIRC the SAF lawsuit focused on the preemption issue, and NRA on the constitutionality of the ban.
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus"
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus
NRA Life Member
ISRA
GOA
USCCA
IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired (So I guess that makes me a Life Member)
Posted 12 June 2018 - 08:26 PM
Don't get too excited. It is only a temporary restraining order. The judge sees the suit as having merit, but there is no ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance.
There most likely will be appeals by the village.
This is good news, but not a definitive victory.
Edited by Quiet Observer, 12 June 2018 - 10:31 PM.
Posted 12 June 2018 - 09:14 PM
Posted 12 June 2018 - 10:24 PM
Great news! I predict there will be fewer tragic boating accidents on Father's Day.
Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:26 AM
Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:46 AM
https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=233
Village Statement on Assault Weapons Ban Temporary Restraining Order
The Village of Deerfield issues the following comment following the June 12, 2018, granting of the Temporary Restraining Order:
“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the Judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the Court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance; but we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the Village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.”
Cliff notes: We are going to waste more of your taxes on this.
Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:48 AM
https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=226Cliff notes: We are going to waste more of your taxes on this.https://www.deerfiel...ts.aspx?AID=233
Village Statement on Assault Weapons Ban Temporary Restraining Order
The Village of Deerfield issues the following comment following the June 12, 2018, granting of the Temporary Restraining Order:
“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the Judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the Court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance; but we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the Village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.”
Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:16 AM
Yea their lawyer is ProBono. Their ProBono lawyer causes the our lawyer to work more. More billing hours. If we win the case, Their ProBono lawyers arn't gunna be paying for our attorney fees, the taxpayers of deerfield will be.
Unless they said they were gunna pay any losing court fees also on behalf of Deerfield and i missed that. But i have a feeling that is a no.
Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:16 AM
Unless there is a fee shifting statute that applies, each party pays their own fees and costs.Yea their lawyer is ProBono. Their ProBono lawyer causes the our lawyer to work more. More billing hours. If we win the case, Their ProBono lawyers arn't gunna be paying for our attorney fees, the taxpayers of deerfield will be.
Unless they said they were gunna pay any losing court fees also on behalf of Deerfield and i missed that. But i have a feeling that is a no.
Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:17 AM
Cliff notes: We are going to waste more of your taxes on this.
Deerfield has money. Let them spend it. Maybe their residents will slap them for it in the next election. Maybe not. But, let's get case law on the books. Let's have the courts confirm the intent of pre-emption to stop others from trying what Deerfield is doing.
Personally, I'm very happy that common sense and rule of law has prevailed thus far. The ruling says essentially what we've been saying and the plaintiff's lawyer is making effective arguments to the judge.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users