Jump to content


Photo

People v. Webb - IL Supreme Court Rules Ban On Carrying Stun Guns and Tasers Unconstitutional


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,480 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 23 March 2019 - 12:00 AM

 

It's constitutional carry of stun guns until the FCCA is amended to include stun guns.

Ding ding I was just gonna say that. They declared it facially unconstitutional and didn't stay the mandate like what CA7 did in Moore. The statute doesn't exist due to this ruling. Void from inception.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#32 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,756 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:13 AM

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.
Oh yeah they've been having fun vacating AUUW convictions post-Aguilar/Moseley. Now they gotta go back to the beginning for stun devices. Just what the judiciary really wants to do...re-adjudicate hundreds (thousands?) of cases. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#33 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,480 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 23 March 2019 - 09:08 AM

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.
Oh yeah they've been having fun vacating AUUW convictions post-Aguilar/Moseley. Now they gotta go back to the beginning for stun devices. Just what the judiciary really wants to do...re-adjudicate hundreds (thousands?) of cases. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

A reasonable governor would just issue a blanket pardon to save everyone the headaches.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#34 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,756 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 09:21 AM

A reasonable governor would just issue a blanket pardon to save everyone the headaches.
Key word, "reasonable." Too bad we have JB the Hutt. Well at least this gives the ILGA pause over new legislation when current statute is being declared unconstitutional from its inception. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#35 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,339 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 23 March 2019 - 11:15 AM

 

There are a whole lot of people that can apply to have convictions expunged. Stun guns have been a very popular UUW charge over the years.
Oh yeah they've been having fun vacating AUUW convictions post-Aguilar/Moseley. Now they gotta go back to the beginning for stun devices. Just what the judiciary really wants to do...re-adjudicate hundreds (thousands?) of cases. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Just imagine if FOID being unconstitutional is upheld how many convictions will be up for expungement!


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

#36 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 25 March 2019 - 11:14 AM

This is a stunning decision.

He will be here all day folks!  Don't forget to tip you waitress!



#37 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,832 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 25 March 2019 - 11:29 PM

So, since the statute banning stun guns/Tasers in essence, has never been Constitutional, and as a result a giant's butt-load of AUUW convictions are now going to need to be re-adjudicated or expunged, will there be any possibility for compensation from the state to those adversely affected by those convictions?


"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."

 

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

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#38 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,756 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:58 AM

[W]ill there be any possibility for compensation from the state to those adversely affected by those convictions?
Negatory. Not unless it was a wrongful conviction to begin with. Best they'll get is conviction vacated, entire sheet expunged, make it disappear. And we ALL know that NOTHING ever disappears. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#39 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,832 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 26 March 2019 - 11:37 AM

 

[W]ill there be any possibility for compensation from the state to those adversely affected by those convictions?
Negatory. Not unless it was a wrongful conviction to begin with. Best they'll get is conviction vacated, entire sheet expunged, make it disappear. And we ALL know that NOTHING ever disappears. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Wouldn't the fact that the conviction was obtained under an unconstitutional law make it a wrongful conviction by definition?


"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."

 

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

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#40 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,756 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 March 2019 - 06:56 PM

The jurisprudence governing that is mighty complicated. It's POSSIBLE but it technically isn't a wrongful conviction in the eyes of the law. It's...being convicted of an unconstitutional law. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 26 March 2019 - 06:58 PM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#41 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,130 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 26 March 2019 - 07:51 PM

The jurisprudence governing that is mighty complicated. It's POSSIBLE but it technically isn't a wrongful conviction in the eyes of the law. It's...being convicted of an unconstitutional law.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


SO you can be Rightfully be convicted of an UnConstitutional Law you didn’t have to follow ????
I need a drink!!
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#42 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,832 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 27 March 2019 - 12:11 AM

The jurisprudence governing that is mighty complicated. It's POSSIBLE but it technically isn't a wrongful conviction in the eyes of the law. It's...being convicted of an unconstitutional law. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

The fact remains that harm was received by the people so unconstitutionally convicted, so at the very least it would be a civil rights violation. Would that be even worse, then, than merely a wrongful conviction?


"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."

 

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

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#43 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,507 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:02 AM

Wrongful conviction refers to a conviction derived from an unfair process, like a (possibly false) coerced confession, fabrication or destruction of evidence, witness or jury tampering, or corruption. Basically someone involved in the process had to commit a crime to skew the result, although there are ways to obtain a wrongful conviction that may not technically be crimes, like the prosecution packing a jury with people it knows are likely to convict no matter what the evidence is.

In the case of people convicted of UUW for stun guns and tasers, everyone faithfully enforced what they thought was a valid law.

Edited by Euler, 27 March 2019 - 03:06 AM.

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.


#44 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,756 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 March 2019 - 05:32 AM

^^^^^^^^ This. Is what I was trying to get at. It's the same concept (more or less) as the Davis good faith exception when applying current 4A precedent to cases that arose before the current precedent. Lots of people sitting in prison due to searches & seizures that have since been deemed unconstitutional. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 27 March 2019 - 05:35 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users