Jump to content


Photo

Oral arguments were heard in the case against the Cook County gun/ammo tax. (Audio link)


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,217 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 16 January 2020 - 09:25 PM

First ..If this was posted already plz link where and delete this. I couldn't find and thought I was following most of the cases. I was shocked at what the State thinks about the 2nd. That's why NY case is so important  and shouldn't be moot. I thought our side did really well.

 

Anyway here you go...

 

From FFL of Illinois FB page. I cant get a link to there page..

 

Earlier this week oral arguments were heard in the case against the Cook County gun/ammo tax. . . .

\

 

 

https://multimedia.i...T04PDYTWZq37BDs


Edited by Molly B., 16 January 2020 - 11:07 PM.


#2 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,273 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 17 January 2020 - 07:19 AM

Rather than listen to an hour of audio, can you summarize the money quotes and time?

 

(i.e. at 47:29, the state says...) 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I'm lazy. :)  And posting money quotes and times helps increase the impact of your post. 


Edited by BobPistol, 17 January 2020 - 07:20 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#3 POAT54

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 17 January 2020 - 09:09 AM

Well the short version is Crook county can tax anyone for anything and spend the tax anyway they want. As the county's lawyer said the right to bear arms is NOT a right.

 

Citizen pick up that can.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#4 Bo69

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 14

Posted 17 January 2020 - 05:10 PM

Illinois just uses the working citizens as their personal ATMS

#5 ddan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 14

Posted 18 January 2020 - 12:29 PM

Highlights, cleaned-up audio, and a transcript here:
https://blog.maxonsh...ms-and-ammo-tax

The good guys had a good day

Edited by ddan, 18 January 2020 - 12:31 PM.


#6 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,122 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 18 January 2020 - 02:43 PM

Well the short version is Crook county can tax anyone for anything and spend the tax anyway they want. As the county's lawyer said the right to bear arms is NOT a right.
 
Citizen pick up that can.


More specifically they were arguing that it’s only right so those can be trampled. Fundamental rights are sacred and that is not a fundamental right. They seem to forget the McDonald case which kind of solidified the second amendment as a fundamental right by incorporation via the 14th amendment.


^ this ***

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

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


#7 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,217 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 23 January 2020 - 04:12 PM

For those that want a breakdown. Link from Illinois Carry FB. 

 

https://blog.maxonsh...-T-TQEaQoZ0wu1k


Edited by Sweeper13, 23 January 2020 - 04:12 PM.


#8 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 24 January 2020 - 11:41 PM

They will tax Catholics next. Millions of those wallets in Crook County!

#9 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,273 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 25 January 2020 - 09:05 AM

The cook county tax is all about crony enrichment, nothing more.  More money for cronies. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#10 RANDY

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 07

Posted 25 January 2020 - 09:50 AM

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.


One persons paranoia is another persons situational awareness.

Maybe it is time to remove immunity from all public officials and be able to hold them fully accountable for their actions.


#11 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,038 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 27 January 2020 - 07:48 AM

It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.

I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.


"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#12 mab22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 28 January 2020 - 07:49 AM

They will tax Catholics next. Millions of those wallets in Crook County!

I used that analogy, it’s like a special tax on bibles and using that for the “general fund”. 
 

which makes an interesting case where FOID and CCL funds get swept into a general fund as a source of revenue. What’s the difference between the counties special tax or fee and the way the state is treating it with the license fees?
 


Void the FOID!

#13 mab22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 28 January 2020 - 12:49 PM

Is there a way to see what cases they made reference to, like if they had to file a brief or something? 
The gentleman brought up a case or two but I only heard one name, not the whole case name. 


Void the FOID!

#14 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,588 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 28 January 2020 - 02:35 PM

Is there a way to see what cases they made reference to, like if they had to file a brief or something? 
The gentleman brought up a case or two but I only heard one name, not the whole case name.


If they only reference the case name in oral argument, the case is from the briefs.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users