Jump to content

gunuser17

Supporting Team I
  • Posts

    353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

860 profile views

gunuser17's Achievements

Member

Member (8/24)

  1. Good catch. I had forgotten that the only fingerprint submission I had made was in another state for that state police and an FBI background check in relation to a non firearm licensing procedure. So I believe that state and the FBI have my fingerprints but not Illinois.
  2. While it may feel like the "majority" of various police officials say that they won't enforce the law, in reality population wise, they only represent a minority of the state. You have not heard anyone from Cook County say that. 9.5 million out of the 12.6 million residents live in the Chicago metro area. DuPage and Will counties only make up about 1.5 million of that 9.5 million. I am not saying there will or won't be an enforcement push - just that don't confuse a bunch of officers south of I 80 and Rockford west as being the majority of the state.
  3. I made a purchase about two months ago. FOID expiration date has not updated and I have not received any email or letter or any other type of message. I do have a pending CCL renewal that was filed after the purchase.
  4. I would say no from what you stated. The officer was enforcing a law that was on the books so he had a right to arrest (assuming there was probable cause). More importantly, you have no right to resist the arrest even if you believe that the arrest is unlawful or if the arrest is later found unlawful. The appropriate response is to be arrested peaceably and then sue for damages for the false arrest. Say you get pulled over for speeding at a rate that amounts to reckless driving and an arrest - you then resist arrest. Some time later, the police determine that the radar gun was miscalibrated and you were not actually speeding and dismiss the speeding/reckless charge - I think that the resisting charge still stands in that case. Probably not the answer that most want to hear but I believe that is the legal answer. Also maybe a charge that the prosecutor decides to not go forward many times.
  5. From Bearing Arms: The Fourth Circuit has granted the en banc petition in the lawsuit challenging Maryland's handgun license law. The 3-judge panel struck down the law in November, but today's order means that the entire court will rehear the case. https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/01/11/fourth-circuit-wants-a-do-over-on-challenge-to-marylands-handgun-qualification-license-n79314
  6. Today, the US Supreme Court also denied cert in the California open carry suit Nichols v. Newsom.
  7. This is the last entry on the district court docket: 02/13/2023 77 MANDATE of USCA as to 67 Notice of Appeal, filed by Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Darin E. Miller, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Jennifer J. Miller. (JPS) (Entered: 02/14/2023)
  8. I believe that this is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63195317/jennifer-miller-v-marc-smith/ Reversed and remanded by 7th Circuit back to district court January, 2023 after district court apparently entered summary judgment for the State of Illinois
  9. The is virtually nothing that the US Supreme Court can do to enforce its decisions. For that, the Court must rely on the legislative and executive branches. What the Supremes can do is that after they have ruled a criminal statute unconstitutional, they can reverse every criminal conviction under that statute. Or in noncriminal cases, the Court can reverse any later judgement in a trial or appellate court that is in contravention of the Court's earlier finding of unconstitutionality or other legal finding. That is the system that is established by the Constitution.
  10. This case was still on the court call for today and the docket indicates that it was argued today.
  11. The 9th Circuit has not directly ruled on the case this time around. The only thing that they have done is agree with the state to keep a stay in place so that the mag law in california stays in place for now. However, given the way their order was worded, it sure looks like they have prejudged the case and the antis will like win some time in the next year or so.. Right now, I expect they are just delaying everything they can hoping for some supreme court retirements/deaths so that a democratic president can shift the balance in the supreme court.
  12. Judicial Inquiry Board Board Members / Counsel Board Members / Counsel JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD MEMBERSHIP David P. Sterba, Chair - Lawyer Member Honorable Paula A. Gomora, Vice Chair - Judicial Member Honorable Kent A. Delgado - Judicial Member Sean Nash - Lawyer Member Jonathan S. Quinn - Lawyer Member Elaine Johnson - Public Member Ruby Smith - Public Member Megan Applegate- Public Member Executive Director & General Counsel Michael J. Deno Deputy Director Natosha Cuyler Toller
  13. In my opinion, all Federal laws/rules do not necessarily apply to the states - it depends on what is regulated and how the act is worded. For instance, the law may say that a "Federal Agency cannot do XX". That does not necessarily mean that a state agency may not do XX although I would expect that situation to be somewhat rare.
  14. I don't see the point in throwing all of this money at a number of different cases and different lawyers. Seems to me it would be a lot more cost efficient to get together and file at most one or two cases. Seems to be wasting their donors' money and just grandstanding for the ultimate publicity. There are plenty of other cases/issues that now need or will need money going forward.
  15. I was wondering about "marist" - i didn't think that catholics were the cause of all the problems in Illinois.
×
×
  • Create New...