Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
774 replies to this topic

#91 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,456 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 06 December 2010 - 10:32 AM

Excellent, thanks for your post. Has your company already donated to ISRA or IllinoisCarry? If yes, thanks and maybe donate again, please. Otherwise, can you bring some bucks to the table with a donation? Just asking, thanks for your posts.

Indeed they have! Fidelity is one of our sponsors - see banner ad above!
Molly B.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#92 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 December 2010 - 10:51 AM



Excellent, thanks for your post. Has your company already donated to ISRA or IllinoisCarry? If yes, thanks and maybe donate again, please. Otherwise, can you bring some bucks to the table with a donation? Just asking, thanks for your posts.

Indeed they have! Fidelity is one of our sponsors - see banner ad above!
Molly B.


On another off-topic note, related, Fidelity was featured in a story on NPR/WBEZ this morning:
http://www.wbez.org/...-ban-eliminated

It was a followup about what's come since the CFP... pretty unremarkable story though on the part of WBEZ (i thought there was a lot more they could have talked about - or really emphasized).
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#93 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:32 AM

It was a followup about what's come since the CFP... pretty unremarkable story though on the part of WBEZ (i thought there was a lot more they could have talked about - or really emphasized).



Yes, but to most any reader or listener of the story, it reinforces the notion that Chicago is full of hot air (and other, unnamed substances). The notion that Chicago/Daley whined and screamed and wet their pants about this handgun ban thing, only now to admit (by their actions) that it isn't any big deal.

Articles like that make Chicago's leaders look like petty fools.

They will find that same thing (it's no big deal after all) once right to carry becomes law of the land.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#94 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:56 AM

Since the other thread was getting long and a bit off topic, here is a copy fot he breif filed by Cook County to the Supreme court's order vacating the ruling and remanding it.

Thanks to Druid, for getting it to me.

Attached Files


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#95 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 December 2010 - 12:15 PM

Yes, but to most any reader or listener of the story, it reinforces the notion that Chicago is full of hot air (and other, unnamed substances). The notion that Chicago/Daley whined and screamed and wet their pants about this handgun ban thing, only now to admit (by their actions) that it isn't any big deal.

Articles like that make Chicago's leaders look like petty fools.


You're right. I guess I was just hoping they'd hit a little harder, and draw more attention to their foolishness.

By the way, I just re-visited that story, and now there's 2 comments there, both very positive. ;) Which was surprising since I expected only anti-gun comments.
Edit: And just threw one in there myself. Any little step that helps the people Chicago start to become comfortable with law-abiding citizens carrying firearms, and helps them to see the idiocy of Daley and Chicago with regards to firearms restrictions.
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#96 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 21,054 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 06 December 2010 - 12:53 PM

If we're going to have 2 threads on this lets put the ISRA brief in an easy-to-find place along with the County's.

Thanks to Druid and Howard Roark for getting Appellant's brief posted in The Other Thread



EDIT: Well, there were 2 threads but things have changed ...

Attached Files



#97 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,070 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:03 PM

Will the court fall for this?

I find it interesting they ignore all premises in Heller except the finding specific to Heller. All the reasoning, facts, explanations and statements contained in the majority opinion are not recognized at all by Cook County.

The authority to prohibit weapons in Cook County is based on terms and definitions made up by Cook County. "Rapid fire", "dangerous assault weapon" and "high capacity". Their take on Heller can be used to ban all long guns because the were not mentioned in the findings. If "rapid fire" semiautomatics can be banned so can revolvers that can be fired faster that semi autos by trained persons.

Talk about common sense. Post McDonald will the trial courts second chance to get it right?

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#98 mstrat

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 10

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:07 PM

In the County's brief, I just noticed they make a lot of references to "common handguns," arguing that's all they're not allowed to ban - completely ignoring the fact that the Miller precedent had nothing to do with handguns, but rather *firearms* in common use at the time. They took the Heller ruling saying you can't ban "common handguns" because they are a "firearms in common use" - and grabbed that "common handguns" out of context. If I, someone with zero legal expertise, can see this deception clear as day... you better believe the judge can see it. Now we just have to wait and see if the judge will let fact and law dictate her actions.

They also like to make a few references to "dangerous and unusual". It's like they're hoping if they repeat these terms over and over, they will magically come true.

I'd like to see them try to argue that AR and similar semi-automatical civilian rifles are not "in common use", or that they are "dangerous and unusual".
ProtectIllinois.org: Share this link to teach others about RTC in IL

#99 Skorpius

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,375 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:22 PM

Heh. The first comment by Brian was mine. ;)
Posted Image
NRA / ISRA

#100 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,012 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 06 December 2010 - 04:56 PM

they will rule against us. I wish i could go to the judges and show them the diference in an automatic from a semi-automatic.
I dont even know why its called semi. it isnt automatic at all.
You notice how many times they make reference to "in the home" as if that the only place the constitution allows us to possess firearms. How do they ignore the words "such as"

I like raisins in my food such as my salad. Does that mean I only like raisins in my salad?
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#101 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 December 2010 - 06:13 PM

Post McDonald will the trial courts second chance to get it right?


Consider this ... no matter whether Wilson or Cook county loses in the IL Supreme Court, they will take the case to the appropriate fed court.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#102 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 December 2010 - 06:17 PM

Guys I doubt that the appealate court will change much. I would be highly surprised sicne I debated one of the judges.

We will be going to the Illinois Supreme Court. Hang on to your hats it's gonna be a fun ride.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#103 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 December 2010 - 06:17 PM

they will rule against us.


You know this? Interesting.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#104 Fidelity Academy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 10

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:15 PM

Heh. The first comment by Brian was mine. :D


The reporter in that story seemed interested in doing an ongoing series of stories. He also seemed interested in sitting in on a course and learn more about RTC. We provided some good legal reference materiel (read McDonald v. City of Chicago) and some UCR crime statistics to prove our point. Let's see what comes of this.
Fidelity Investigative Training Academy
"Security Training Concepts You Can Trust"
4224 West Belmont Avenue, 2nd Flr.
Chicago, IL. 6064-4620

Office: (224) 678 - 0311
http://www.FidelityAcademy.us

#105 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,222 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:34 PM

I shrunk the PDF of their brief down as far as I could so I could post it here. Enjoy.

Attached Files



#106 Saturdaynightspecial

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 06

Posted 11 December 2010 - 01:55 PM

Anita Alvarez easily presents a convinceable argument to keep Americans disarmed. Does she see the inverse of her "armed mayhem" ? If govt needs to prevent "armed mayhem", then do we the people need to prevent armed mayhem upon us by the govt ? According to Alvarez, preventing "armed mayhem" is important. I agree.

She repeatedly refers to the govt's need to protect the public, but never says anything about the public's need to protect itself from the govt (with assault weapons).

The 2nd amendment is not about self defense in the home. It is about self defense from the govt.

Govt is always our worst enemy.

The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit the govt from regulating weapons.

Edited by abolt243, 11 December 2010 - 02:14 PM.
Removed comment that violated forum rules.


#107 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 11 December 2010 - 02:02 PM

Does she see the inverse of her "armed mayhem"?


No, she doesn't.

I totally understand your points, but I would kindly recommend you edit out that second to last sentence. This is a public forum, you understand.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#108 Druid

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,222 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:15 PM

She repeatedly refers to the govt's need to protect the public, but never says anything about the public's need to protect itself from the govt (with assault weapons).


What's sad, is that the guns in the ban aren't any more dangerous, and aren't used by any military force in the world. They are in common use for sport and hunting. Banning guns just because they have a military look about them is outrageous.

#109 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,116 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 11 December 2010 - 08:00 PM

She repeatedly refers to the govt's need to protect the public, but never says anything about the public's need to protect itself from the govt (with assault weapons).


What's sad, is that the guns in the ban aren't any more dangerous, and aren't used by any military force in the world. They are in common use for sport and hunting. Banning guns just because they have a military look about them is outrageous.

It's a good thing that Thomas Jefferson isn't alive today and posting his quotes on the internet, one like

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

or "The spirit of resistance to government is valuable on certain occasions that I wish it always be kept alive" Thomas Jefferson

A quote by George Washington seems a little like Saturdaynightspecials

"Government is not reason, it is not elequent, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

I'm sure today some quotes by the founding fathers might get them on a homeland security watch list today.

Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrong doers should dominate just men.  -  Augustine

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)


#110 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 12 December 2010 - 12:07 AM

Anita Alvarez easily presents a convinceable argument to keep Americans disarmed. Does she see the inverse of her "armed mayhem" ? If govt needs to prevent "armed mayhem", then do we the people need to prevent armed mayhem upon us by the govt ? According to Alvarez, preventing "armed mayhem" is important. I agree.

She repeatedly refers to the govt's need to protect the public, but never says anything about the public's need to protect itself from the govt (with assault weapons).

The 2nd amendment is not about self defense in the home. It is about self defense from the govt.

Govt is always our worst enemy.

The only purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prohibit the govt from regulating weapons.



Woosh! I'm sorry I missed the edited part! Good so far though.
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#111 Saturdaynightspecial

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined: 19-November 06

Posted 12 December 2010 - 04:45 AM

IMO, no two people share the same values. We are all at least slightly different.

I KNOW who are the most, and the largest, antigun group of Amerikanos.

And, police don't keep us safe, they make us less safe because they allow govt (our worst enemy) to enforce gun control laws that leave us defenseless.

Full auto or semiauto rifles are needed by us to protect ourselves from Anita Alvarez, the police and the Cook County Sheriff and Deputies (that's why they included the 2nd amendment).

#112 Don Moran

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 10

Posted 18 December 2010 - 04:34 PM

Quick update.

The Plaintiff's motion to strike the amended Defendant's brief, DENIED. No matter that it still contains misquotes of cites and that the County used their "mistake" in the original brief, to violate the court's rules and add addtional arguments in their "correction". I understand it was only signed by one Judge, Justice Murphy, but I have not actually seen the court's reply at this time. If necessary, I'll make corrections to this post when I actually get a copy of the court's order.

Thanks to everyone for their support.

Don Moran

#113 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 18 December 2010 - 07:08 PM

...



Mr. Moran, welcome to IllinoisCarry.com and thanks for all the good work you are doing through Illinois State Rifle Association. Your win at McDonald v Chicago was incredible! Please keep up the fight.
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#114 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,012 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 18 December 2010 - 10:50 PM

denied? What the heck
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#115 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 18 December 2010 - 11:42 PM

Quick update. [...text elided...]
... If necessary, I'll make corrections to this post when I actually get a copy of the court's order...
Don Moran


Thank you Sir. Respect to your work at ISRA. Please post here with information that is safe to share (ISRA surely has strategies that are sensitive). As Sigma said, I too am surprised that the court, when presented with falsified statements (intentionally misquoting the Supreme Court), would do anything other than strike and reject those statements. It's not clear to me why any representative of the justice system can get a "do over" if they are shown to have presented falsified information to the court.

HR
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#116 Don Moran

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Joined: 16-December 10

Posted 19 December 2010 - 07:45 PM

Thank you very much for the welcome Howard.

Strategy... there has never been an expectation of a favorable decision anywhere below the Illinois Supreme Court.

The plaintiff's attorneys have made and will continue to make strong and honest arguments based on the law. Each time the Justices make decisions that are obviously contrary to the law, logic, and fairness, it mearly delays and runs up the bill for both sides. Rulings like this only go towards strengthening our case on appeal.

Just like most of you, I am not surprised one bit by the oppositions filings or the rulings of the court, we are after all playing in their sandbox. Eventually, we'll be outside the reach of Cook County politics and with the continued help of all of our members and contributers, we'll win this fight!

Quick update. [...text elided...]
... If necessary, I'll make corrections to this post when I actually get a copy of the court's order...
Don Moran


Thank you Sir. Respect to your work at ISRA. Please post here within information that is safe and lawful to share (ISRA surely has strategies that are sensitive). As Sigma said, I too am surprised that the court, when presented with falsified statements (intentionally misquoting the Supreme Court), would do anything other than strike and reject those statements. It's not clear to me why any representative of the justice system can get a "do over" if they are shown to have presented falsified information to the court.

HR



#117 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 19 December 2010 - 11:32 PM

Mr. Moran, thanks for your kind words. Will the plaintiffs in this case be able to perform discovery to determine whether the direct mis-quotations of the Supreme Court Heller decision were intentional?

I'm not a lawyer yet I can see that the direct quotation of Heller on page 1 of Anita Alverez's States Attorney Office brief missing from the United States Supreme Court's Heller case. Much worse is the fact that the entire argument presented in Cook County's brief is based on that false quote.

I'm sure you agree that The Illinois Bar Association is probably interested to know if lawyers knowingly lie in court. Shouldn't the court allow discovery interviews of Anita's office to ameliorate the harm already done to our side in this case?

P.S. Please accept this small gift of appreciation for your fine work with the ISRA. This non-copyrighted, improved version of your likeness is presented to you for any Seasonal purpose you see fit.

Attached Images

  • Don_Moran_Santa.jpg

Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#118 Howard Roark

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 09

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:19 AM

Strategy... there has never been an expectation of a favorable decision anywhere below the Illinois Supreme Court.

The plaintiff's attorneys have made and will continue to make strong and honest arguments based on the law. Each time the Justices make decisions that are obviously contrary to the law, logic, and fairness, it mearly delays and runs up the bill for both sides. Rulings like this only go towards strengthening our case on appeal.

Just like most of you, I am not surprised one bit by the oppositions filings or the rulings of the court, we are after all playing in their sandbox. Eventually, we'll be outside the reach of Cook County politics and with the continued help of all of our members and contributers, we'll win this fight!



Thanks for all. :yes1:
Howard Roark
Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!

#119 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 20 December 2010 - 02:43 AM

Welcome to IllinoisCarry, Don. I for one am very happy to see you here!
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#120 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,712 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 20 December 2010 - 07:51 AM

Welcome Don!! And thanks for your comments re: the ongoing court case. Hope to see you post often regarding all the court cases pending here in the Prairie State. You help to give us a different perspective.

I shudder to think what the press and the antis would do to us if our side were to try to add words to a Supreme Court decision to further our agenda!!

Sic 'em!! Let's get this to the Supreme of IL and get a proper ruling on it!!


AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users