Jump to content

mstrat

Members
  • Posts

    1,394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

mstrat's Achievements

Member

Member (21/24)

  1. Something tells me that 148 was a lost "opportunity" for the opposition. We'll see though. I'd be curious to hear Todd's informed opinion on this: If we had the legislative backing, couldn't we simply threaten to block the passage of any carry bills... effectively making FOID and unrestricted carry the law of the land in 180 days?
  2. Thanks for the update. Great job and a big thank you to everyone involved in this suit (if any are here?) !
  3. Here seem to be a few key points of this denial: The Supreme Court found that a municipality cannot moot a case by tweaking an ordinance in some insignificant way, and though the new ordinance may have disadvantaged the plaintiff less, “it disadvantage[d] [the plaintiff] in the same fundamental way.” This is not an instance where the plaintiff challenged an ordinance, and the city simply repealed it. The new ordinance undoubtedly burdens anyone trying to open or use a firing range, including with zoning restrictions. Consequently, whether the new ordinance’s restrictions are so burdensome as to effectively ban firing ranges or invade an individual’s Second Amendment rights is an issue that must be hashed out in litigation.
  4. Excellent! Thanks for the update. Can't wait to read this.
  5. This ruling lays it on heavily about the scrutiny needed when ruling on Constitutionally-protected rights (and that quote from the introduction, as GF pointed out, is golden: " the City’s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation."). I wonder if this will help strengthen a fight against the Cook County semi-auto ban? This is a court ruling, in black and white, saying heightened scrutiny is required. In plain English. No weaseling about it. I want to hear the Cook County board explain exactly what evidence they have that their semi-auto ban is necessary for public safety. Edit: +1 to GF for simultaneously likening our dictators to weasels.
  6. I may be misunderstanding, but it looks to me that it's not the end of the case, right? It appears this is simply granting an injunction against the city's ban until the matter is settled in court (a symbolic win, though in practice it's pretty silly since one could build a range during the injunction, then have the court decide the ban is OK, then have to tear it down). A pretty awesome ruling though. There's quite a lot of smacking down the lower court, too The lower court judge tried to say that because there's no post-Heller precedent, she didn't need to apply any level of scrutiny to restrictions on the second amendment. This court replies: In other words - Regarding heightened scrutiny (i.e. the government has to PROVE to some degree (depending on the type of scrutiny) that their laws limiting the 2nd Amendment are necessary and in the public's interest) ... the argument that it's not needed is absolute garbage since allowing the government to willy-nilly create gun control laws without proving their need would effectively erase the second amendment. Thank goodness this court used logic. It's a refreshing change. It's also nice to see the ruling acknowledge that our right to self defense is a pre-existing natural right.
  7. Thanks. Now that the 97th ILGA just started, I'll be updating my database of contacts soon (today or tomorrow I hope) and starting a new ILGA contact thread.
  8. Great spreadsheet! Thank you for sharing
  9. Good to see this in the mainstream media. It's so rare to see anyone but firearms enthusiasts acknowledge this. Glad to see the reporter included it. Great work!
  10. There is some amusing and sharp commentary from in article Basically it sounds like a circle jerk between the zoning commissioner and the judge, with zero regard for reason, evidence, or law. I'm glad the author is bringing the issue of zoning to light too - because almost everybody else focuses entirely on the complete ban. And when (yes when) the city loses this case, they're going to zone it into impossibility while everyone else washes their hands and walks away, saying they've complied and the matter is settled. (emphasis added)
  11. That article makes me all-the-more wishing, hoping and waiting for a full fledged case against the IL ban on carry.
×
×
  • Create New...