Federal Farmer Posted July 23, 2014 at 04:19 PM Share Posted July 23, 2014 at 04:19 PM I think this is pretty clear: ( An “assault weapon” shall not include any firearm that: (2) has been rendered permanently inoperable. “Permanently inoperable” means a firearm which is incapable of discharging a projectile by means of an explosive and incapable of being restored to a firing condition; or Permanently inoperable means much more than simply removing the barrel. You'd have to weld a glob of steel into the barrel thread, or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fljr Posted July 23, 2014 at 04:44 PM Share Posted July 23, 2014 at 04:44 PM Another silly question....If all these so called "assault weapons" are banned in all of Cook County, why would home rule units "reban" them? Isn't that what the 10 day period was for after CCW law passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearsmithy Posted July 23, 2014 at 05:17 PM Share Posted July 23, 2014 at 05:17 PM If all these so called "assault weapons" are banned in all of Cook County, why would home rule units "reban" them? Because we are just one law away from a perfect society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted July 23, 2014 at 05:33 PM Share Posted July 23, 2014 at 05:33 PM Another silly question....If all these so called "assault weapons" are banned in all of Cook County, why would home rule units "reban" them? Isn't that what the 10 day period was for after CCW law passed?PR, they have to seem like they are doing something to pander to their base Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowcat Posted August 19, 2014 at 06:46 AM Share Posted August 19, 2014 at 06:46 AM I've been thinking, if the the Cook County AWB is thrown out by the court completely, would it be possible that Cook would not be able to pass another AWB due to the state preemption for laws regulating "assault weapons" in the conceal carry law? If the court throws out the entire law that would mean Cook never had a valid AWB to begin with so would not have a authority to pass another one. At least that's how i'm reading the tea leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teufel Hunden Posted August 19, 2014 at 05:06 PM Share Posted August 19, 2014 at 05:06 PM As I understand it, the Cook County AWB allows for Home Rule units to opt out. Hoffman Estates has done this, largely to accommodate Cabela's building their store within Hoffman Estates. In theory you could still get popped upon leaving Hoffman Estates into unincorporated Cook County or a municipality that has an AWB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IL-SK Posted August 19, 2014 at 08:38 PM Share Posted August 19, 2014 at 08:38 PM So since Skokie has an assault weapons ban and is also home rule; this cook county court battle wont lift the ban on ar15's in skokie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted August 19, 2014 at 08:40 PM Share Posted August 19, 2014 at 08:40 PM It all depends on the wording of the court ruling. If the court throws out the law as entirely unconstitutional, then any law in a jurisdiction covered by that court would likely have to be thrown out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman Posted August 19, 2014 at 10:52 PM Share Posted August 19, 2014 at 10:52 PM One of the dumbest laws ever. Still waiting for them to overturn this before I buy my ARX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted August 20, 2014 at 09:04 PM Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 at 09:04 PM If the Cook ban falls, it will likely have the impact on taking many others with it depending on the way the ruling is written Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted August 20, 2014 at 09:06 PM Share Posted August 20, 2014 at 09:06 PM Right. Cook is basically holding off on enforcing its AWB due to the fact it's pretty much (if not entirely) identical to Highland Park's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted August 25, 2014 at 07:54 AM Share Posted August 25, 2014 at 07:54 AM I've been thinking, if the the Cook County AWB is thrown out by the court completely, would it be possible that Cook would not be able to pass another AWB due to the state preemption for laws regulating "assault weapons" in the conceal carry law? If the court throws out the entire law that would mean Cook never had a valid AWB to begin with so would not have a authority to pass another one. At least that's how i'm reading the tea leafs. It's unlikely we will see any movement in the Wilson case since the Highland Park case is now the main AWB focus. Given the language of the Moore/Sheppard ruling my expectation is that both the Wilson and HP cases, if decided in our favor, will be given a generous stay of mandate allowing allowing for a more constitutional rewrite of the law, just like what happened with Moore/Sheppard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted August 29, 2014 at 06:26 PM Share Posted August 29, 2014 at 06:26 PM It's been a while since I posted about the case, but I just spoke with lead counsel, Vic Quilici, in the Wilson case (where I am named plaintiff) and this is what he had to say: “Wilson is not on the back-burner and has moved to a point where the judge will soon assign the trial date or make a determination for ruling on joint summary judgment motions. Friedman should not be considered the main AWB case as ISRA and NRA are devoting as much attention to the Wilson case as NRA is concentrating on Friedman. Jim Vogts, lead counsel in Friedman has given equal attention as co-counsel in Wilson by focusing upon what we need to make a solid record that will enable us to succeed with finality in the Supreme Court. The two prior wins in the State Supreme Court by Wilson have effectively prevented enforcement of the assault weapon ban ordinance in Cook County. To date, no known arrests and/or convictions have resulted from the Cook County Ordinance since its passage in 2006.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted August 29, 2014 at 06:40 PM Share Posted August 29, 2014 at 06:40 PM It's been a while since I posted about the case, but I just spoke with lead counsel, Vic Quilici, in the Wilson case (where I am named plaintiff) and this is what he had to say:“Wilson is not on the back-burner and has moved to a point where the judge will soon assign the trial date or make a determination for ruling on joint summary judgment motions. Friedman should not be considered the main AWB case as ISRA and NRA are devoting as much attention to the Wilson case as NRA is concentrating on Friedman. Jim Vogts, lead counsel in Friedman has given equal attention as co-counsel in Wilson by focusing upon what we need to make a solid record that will enable us to succeed with finality in the Supreme Court. The two prior wins in the State Supreme Court by Wilson have effectively prevented enforcement of the assault weapon ban ordinance in Cook County. To date, no known arrests and/or convictions have resulted from the Cook County Ordinance since its passage in 2006.” Thanks for the update! Good to know it's moving along ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Guy 77 Posted September 28, 2014 at 01:17 AM Share Posted September 28, 2014 at 01:17 AM Thanks for update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearsmithy Posted October 27, 2014 at 03:42 PM Share Posted October 27, 2014 at 03:42 PM Did we get a trial date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted October 27, 2014 at 04:05 PM Share Posted October 27, 2014 at 04:05 PM Or anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCroskey Posted October 28, 2014 at 02:24 PM Share Posted October 28, 2014 at 02:24 PM Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firepiper Posted October 29, 2014 at 04:06 AM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 04:06 AM Anyone? ....Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted October 29, 2014 at 06:54 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 06:54 PM "Wilson vs. Cook County" was in court today.A Management Conference with the judge for was set for Dec. 9th. At that Conference, a Pre-Trail date will be set which will likely be early in 2015. I can also share that our side has 5 expert witnesses, they have 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Destro Posted October 29, 2014 at 08:31 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 08:31 PM "Wilson vs. Cook County" was in court today.A Management Conference with the judge for was set for Dec. 9th. At that Conference, a Pre-Trail date will be set which will likely be early in 2015. I can also share that our side has 5 expert witnesses, they have 4.I'm sure 4 anti "expert" witness only count as one mentally functioning person. Here we go. Lets hope 2015 is a very happy new year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 29, 2014 at 08:52 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 08:52 PM This was originally filed in 2010? Wow. Let's hope for resolution early in the new year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:34 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:34 PM Thank you for the info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:52 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 09:52 PM This was originally filed in 2010? Wow. Let's hope for resolution early in the new year! Nope. Before then. Iirc, 2007. This case has gone up to the Illinois Supreme Court 3 times, and been remanded back down to the lower courts because of rulings in other cases, such as Heller by SCOTUS in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 29, 2014 at 10:32 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 10:32 PM This was originally filed in 2010? Wow. Let's hope for resolution early in the new year! Nope. Before then. Iirc, 2007. This case has gone up to the Illinois Supreme Court 3 times, and been remanded back down to the lower courts because of rulings in other cases, such as Heller by SCOTUS in 2008. Whoa! I was going by the earliest date in this thread. Oh my. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted October 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 10:34 PM I doubt the Culp or Friedman cases will go this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD123 Posted October 29, 2014 at 11:11 PM Share Posted October 29, 2014 at 11:11 PM "Wilson vs. Cook County" was in court today.A Management Conference with the judge for was set for Dec. 9th. At that Conference, a Pre-Trail date will be set which will likely be early in 2015. I can also share that our side has 5 expert witnesses, they have 4.I'm sure 4 anti "expert" witness only count as one mentally functioning person. Here we go. Lets hope 2015 is a very happy new year. Thanks for that, I just spit Pepsi all over my computer monitor LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaden Posted October 30, 2014 at 11:33 AM Share Posted October 30, 2014 at 11:33 AM When this is overturned, I have a Galil on my shopping list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted October 30, 2014 at 02:02 PM Share Posted October 30, 2014 at 02:02 PM This was originally filed in 2010? Wow. Let's hope for resolution early in the new year!Nope. Before then. Iirc, 2007. This case has gone up to the Illinois Supreme Court 3 times, and been remanded back down to the lower courts because of rulings in other cases, such as Heller by SCOTUS in 2008. For those who haven't been following the Highland Park saga, if there are any such out there, this is what Highland Park officials referred to, in a mind-blowing case of wishful thinking, as "having twice been upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadude999 Posted December 10, 2014 at 02:25 AM Share Posted December 10, 2014 at 02:25 AM Today is Dec. 9, so I would imagine they had the hearing. Any updates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.