Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
769 replies to this topic

#721 civilone

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 16

Posted 09 August 2018 - 09:38 AM

I wonder what the Illinois militia would require for us to show up with if there was an Illinois militia?  Is there an Illinois militia?



#722 Twostarrz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 09 August 2018 - 09:55 AM

I wonder what the Illinois militia would require for us to show up with if there was an Illinois militia?  Is there an Illinois militia?


Why not start one? We can get together for “training” once a month.

#723 g00dleuky

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 18

Posted 09 August 2018 - 10:33 AM

Bonus:  You're already a member!

 

See the Illinois constitution:

http://www.ilga.gov/...n/lrb/con12.htm

 

Not sure what laws the state legislature has made to

 "provide by law for the
organization, equipment and discipline of the militia"

Edited by g00dleuky, 09 August 2018 - 10:34 AM.


#724 tchostler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,569 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 09

Posted 09 August 2018 - 10:37 AM

laying the ground work for a statewide ban on all semi auto firearms.



#725 GP4L

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined: 21-December 17

Posted 09 August 2018 - 11:05 AM

So, with this "ruling" - does it actually change anything for an individual living in a town inside of Crook, that have owned leftist-defined "assault" weapons for years?  Asking for a friend with a CCL that carries an AR pistol w/standard capacity magazines in their vehicle... 



#726 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 09 August 2018 - 11:12 AM

I'm probably more "pro-regulation" than most on here...but I do have an issue with the particular argument the judge used. 

 

In their challenge, the plaintiff’s alleged that the ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment. The judge, however, wrote, “The Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to possess a type of weapon (such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun) that the government would not expect citizens to bring with them when called to serve in the militia.”

 

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns?  No one in Illinois would show up with a machine gun or a sawed off shot gun (less than 18"s) in Illinois because they are already illegal to own in the state.   

 

Outside of shotguns, my assumption is that a huge chunk of people would show up with AR-15's, followed by AK-47's, and some Mini-14's (which are technically not assault weapons).   

 

If the judge wants to argue organized vs unorganized militia, I could understand that.   But what he stated makes zero sense.  The most common rifle sold today is basically what our military uses (minus full auto)....so...I'm not sure what point the judge is trying to make. 



#727 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,688 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 09 August 2018 - 01:58 PM

Another day in Illinois, another kick in the pants.  :no:



#728 Druid

    Member

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

Posted 09 August 2018 - 02:36 PM

As others have stated above, the court dismissed Wilson vs. Cook County because of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Friedman v. Highland Park.  

 

It's a bad result, but not unexpected at this court.

 

After reading the order, I see the judge clearly made many errors and stated wrong facts.

 

Next step: Appeal to the Seventh Circuit.



#729 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,075 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 10 August 2018 - 07:43 AM

I'm probably more "pro-regulation" than most on here...but I do have an issue with the particular argument the judge used. 

 

In their challenge, the plaintiff’s alleged that the ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment. The judge, however, wrote, “The Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to possess a type of weapon (such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun) that the government would not expect citizens to bring with them when called to serve in the militia.”

 

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns?  No one in Illinois would show up with a machine gun or a sawed off shot gun (less than 18"s) in Illinois because they are already illegal to own in the state.   

 

Outside of shotguns, my assumption is that a huge chunk of people would show up with AR-15's, followed by AK-47's, and some Mini-14's (which are technically not assault weapons).   

 

If the judge wants to argue organized vs unorganized militia, I could understand that.   But what he stated makes zero sense.  The most common rifle sold today is basically what our military uses (minus full auto)....so...I'm not sure what point the judge is trying to make. 

The opinion by McRenolds in US v Miller contains the following, which the anti's used for decades to mean that you had no RKBA:
 

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
 

But in fact a short barrel shotgun was extremely effective in the war fought just 20 years prior to this, in trench warfare.

 

There was simply no one there to argue for the defense in this case. (US v Miller, 1939) This remained the last 2nd Amendment case with a SCOTUS ruling until DC v Heller.



#730 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,936 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 10 August 2018 - 01:05 PM

...
But in fact a short barrel shotgun was extremely effective in the war fought just 20 years prior to this, in trench warfare.
...


Unfortunately there is little documentation of the use of shotguns ("trench guns") in WW I. No photographs exist of American soldiers even in the same frame as a shotgun. Historians have conjectured the War Department issued an order to destroy any such evidence, because that's the only way to explain the lack of documentation. There are photos of shotguns, clearly in a trench environment, but only the guns themselves, no people.

The use of "trench guns" was banned by the Hague Convention, which the US did not sign. Nevertheless, when the British and French used them, the Germans did not object. When Americans used them, however, the Germans objected, so it became a politically sensitive topic.
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.


#731 McCroskey

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Members
  • 3,652 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 09 November 2018 - 07:17 PM

What's the status of appeal to the Seventh?


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#732 skeetbreak

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 14

Posted 01 March 2019 - 02:21 PM

ISRA Headline News
7575p5280EDNthumbimg-ISRA_logo_full-colo ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 28, 2019 by Richard Pearson

In the heat of all the anti-gun activity in Springfield, it is important to remember the Illinois State Rifle Association is moving forward on the litigation front.  I am pleased to announce the suit against Cook County and their so-called assault weapons ban is again moving forward.  The case known as Wilson v Cook County will be argued before the Seventh Circuit on April 4th, 2019.  For those who might not recall, the Seventh Circuit is a Federal Court with the next stop being the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). 



#733 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,679 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 01 March 2019 - 02:36 PM

Glad to see this case is moving forward.

The only problem that I see is this case was filed in 2010 and it hasn't been resolved. I think second amendment cases that prohibit a constitutional right should be heard a lot sooner and resolved a lot quicker.

If this would have been a first amendment case against the right to free speech it would have been resolved years ago. SMH

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#734 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 01 March 2019 - 04:58 PM

....   If this would have been a first amendment case against the right to free speech it would have been resolved years ago. SMH

 

x100



#735 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,994 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 01 March 2019 - 05:04 PM

 

ISRA Headline News
7575p5280EDNthumbimg-ISRA_logo_full-colo ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 28, 2019 by Richard Pearson

In the heat of all the anti-gun activity in Springfield, it is important to remember the Illinois State Rifle Association is moving forward on the litigation front.  I am pleased to announce the suit against Cook County and their so-called assault weapons ban is again moving forward.  The case known as Wilson v Cook County will be argued before the Seventh Circuit on April 4th, 2019.  For those who might not recall, the Seventh Circuit is a Federal Court with the next stop being the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). 

 

 

How, if at all, can this help with curtailing the idiocy like the proposed anti-semi-auto ban and 10-round+ magazine bans that are currently being pushed in the ILGA? Would a favorable ruling scuttle those pieces of legislative stupidity and rights trampling?


"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
 

 
 
 
 


#736 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 01 March 2019 - 06:16 PM

As we've seen, lawsuit or not, SCOTUS ruling or not, they'll just move towards a state-wide ban and the Cook County ban can be struck down. It won't bother them one bit.

I just wish we could find a way to allow ownership of MG's in the state, like so many other states allow as long as you pay Uncle Sam for the privilege to own/possess them..


Edited by Bird76Mojo, 01 March 2019 - 06:19 PM.

Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#737 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,980 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 01 March 2019 - 06:17 PM

 

 

ISRA Headline News
7575p5280EDNthumbimg-ISRA_logo_full-colo ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 28, 2019 by Richard Pearson

In the heat of all the anti-gun activity in Springfield, it is important to remember the Illinois State Rifle Association is moving forward on the litigation front.  I am pleased to announce the suit against Cook County and their so-called assault weapons ban is again moving forward.  The case known as Wilson v Cook County will be argued before the Seventh Circuit on April 4th, 2019.  For those who might not recall, the Seventh Circuit is a Federal Court with the next stop being the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). 

 

 

How, if at all, can this help with curtailing the idiocy like the proposed anti-semi-auto ban and 10-round+ magazine bans that are currently being pushed in the ILGA? Would a favorable ruling scuttle those pieces of legislative stupidity and rights trampling?

 

We can hope for a clean ruling which settles all of the so-called AWB issues once and for all, but the Court has a way of crafting excruciatingly narrow decisions which handle one case without providing much guidance on what to do with the next, apparently similar, one. There's no telling what they'll do with this one (assuming they grant cert, which is by no means a foregone conclusion). The best thing to do is just sit back and watch the show. It's gonna be a good one.


Ad utrumque paratus


#738 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,396 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 01 March 2019 - 06:55 PM

I wonder what the Illinois militia would require for us to show up with if there was an Illinois militia?  Is there an Illinois militia?

 

Since this was brought up, I can answer this question. 

YES. There is an Illinois State Militia. And I was once a member and had a membership card that was signed

by the state Attorney General. I was mustered in when I was a Civil War reenactor and was a member of

Battery G, 2nd Illinois Light Artillery out of Stillman Valley Illinois. Since I no longer am an active member,

I assume that I am no longer a part of the Illinois State Militia. 

 

And before someone asks. . . NO, I don't have the card. Or, at least I cannot find it. So I can't post a picture of it.  



#739 michael

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 12

Posted 01 March 2019 - 10:22 PM

 

I wonder what the Illinois militia would require for us to show up with if there was an Illinois militia?  Is there an Illinois militia?

 

Since this was brought up, I can answer this question. 

YES. There is an Illinois State Militia. And I was once a member and had a membership card that was signed

by the state Attorney General. I was mustered in when I was a Civil War reenactor and was a member of

Battery G, 2nd Illinois Light Artillery out of Stillman Valley Illinois. Since I no longer am an active member,

I assume that I am no longer a part of the Illinois State Militia. 

 

And before someone asks. . . NO, I don't have the card. Or, at least I cannot find it. So I can't post a picture of it.  

 

 

Illinois (state) Constitution Article XII: Section 1. Membership: "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."



#740 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 02 March 2019 - 09:20 AM

And Governor Jelly Belly is your Commander in Chief.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#741 Redlin

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 13

Posted 02 March 2019 - 10:26 AM

And Governor Jelly Belly is your Commander in Chief.

Wow,that instills alot of confidence.

 

 

"Governor,do you swear to preserve and defend both the IL and the U.S. Constitution?"

giphy.gif


Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

Thomas Paine


#742 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 04 April 2019 - 04:55 PM

Apparently oral arguments were today. What court circuit is this in now?

#743 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 04 April 2019 - 05:00 PM



Seems short though.

#744 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,994 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 07 April 2019 - 02:03 PM

So, what happened to the several dozen posts in this thread that I got alerts for, going back to late last month?

 

I click on the notification and it goes here, but all of the posts but Davey's last two are gone.

 

Something problematic happen in the past few days to warrant that complete whitewashing deletion?


"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
 

 
 
 
 


#745 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,936 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 07 April 2019 - 02:17 PM

So, what happened to the several dozen posts in this thread that I got alerts for, going back to late last month?
...


showtopic=71707
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.


#746 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,822 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 29 August 2019 - 12:50 PM

Decision 8/29.

full pdf...

http://media.ca7.usc...p:N:2391208:S:0

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:17-cv-07002 Manish S. Shah, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED APRIL 4, 2019 DECIDED AUGUST 29, 2019

...PER CURIAM. Two Cook County residents appeal the
dismissal of their complaint, which raises a Second Amend-
ment challenge to Cook Countys ban on assault rifles and
large-capacity magazines. Less than five years ago, we up-
held a materially indistinguishable ordinance against a Second Amendment challenge. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). The district court dismissed the plaintiffs complaint on the basis of Friedman. We agree with the district court that Friedman is controlling. Because the plaintiffs have not come forward with a compelling reason to revisit our previous decision, we affirm the judgment of the district court....

...Conclusion
As the Court did in Heller, it is important to note the limitations of our holding. We answer only the two questions presented by the appellants: should the district court have given the plaintiffs an opportunity to develop a factual record on which to distinguish Friedman, and should we revisit our holding in Friedman. Our answer to both questions is no. Our holding in Friedman did not depend upon the kinds of facts that the plaintiffs seek to gather, and the plaintiffs have come forward with no reasonmuch less a compelling onefor us to revisit Friedman. We do not establish here a comprehensive approach to Second Amendment challenges, and we leave for other cases further development and refinement of standards in this emerging area of the law. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiffs complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) is affirmed. The defendants may recover their costs in this court.
AFFIRMED...

Edited by InterestedBystander, 29 August 2019 - 01:44 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#747 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,332 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 29 August 2019 - 01:14 PM

Passing the buck . . .
 

 

 

We do not establish here a comprehensive approach to Second Amendment challenges, and we leave for other cases further development and re-finement of standards in this emerging area of the law.

 


"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

#748 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,083 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 29 August 2019 - 01:37 PM

If you don't come up with any new arguments then precedent stands. Regardless of how ugly it is. Unless the court wants to revisit that and AWBs are all the rage now so judges best duck and cover or something. Let's hope this (and Friedman) gets vacated in light of NYSPRA...if that comes out "our way." File a cert petition and hope they hold it. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#749 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,936 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 August 2019 - 01:55 PM

The court's reasoning worked like this:

Is possessing certain features on a firearm protected by the 2nd Amendment in the first place?

If not, does prohibiting those features prevent law-abiding citizens from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for self-defense?

The court says features are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, only whole arms, and that prohibiting features does not prevent people from owning arms commonly used for self-defense. Establishing the commonality of the banned features was irrelevant to the case. As long as there are some commonly used weapons that are not restricted, it's okay to restrict other weapons, even if they're commonly used.

So, for (my) example, it doesn't matter that a semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip is common, because a bolt-action rifle with a legacy stock is also common and not restricted.

In the middle of it all, the court also re-affirmed that making people feel safer is a compelling government interest.

Edited by Euler, 29 August 2019 - 02:06 PM.

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.


#750 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,936 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 August 2019 - 01:57 PM

... Let's hope this (and Friedman) gets vacated in light of NYSPRA...if that comes out "our way." ...


NYSRPA is about transport of handguns. There's nothing in NYSRPA about rifles or features.
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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users