Tvandermyde Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:04 PM Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:04 PM There has been a petiton filed asking the court to take up the case. Cert is an abbreveation of a latin term certcuri or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:14 PM Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:14 PM certiorari (i googled it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#United_States seems like its sortof like an appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ming Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:32 PM Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:32 PM certiorari (i googled it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#United_States seems like its sortof like an appeal? Being granted certiorari means the court has decided to hear the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted May 6, 2011 at 03:42 PM Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 03:42 PM Petiton for cert filed What does this even really mean? Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ. I had to look it up myself once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nocaster Posted May 7, 2011 at 12:37 AM Share Posted May 7, 2011 at 12:37 AM I am confused. If the last decision/order in this case was entered by the 1st District Appellate Court, wouldn't the next step be the Illinois Supreme Court rather than the U.S. Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:34 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:34 PM I am confused. If the last decision/order in this case was entered by the 1st District Appellate Court, wouldn't the next step be the Illinois Supreme Court rather than the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes, the next step is the Illinois Supreme Court. They waited 11 months on deciding what to do the last time this was appealed to their Court because they were waiting on the McDonald decision. They sent the case back down to the Appellate Court at that time, for that court to re-do based on McDonald. Not sure what they are waiting for this time. They are probably just busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:43 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:43 PM I really think this needs to be overturned, it goes too far. This is the same law as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban AKA AWB right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:52 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:52 PM I really think this needs to be overturned, it goes too far. This is the same law as the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban AKA AWB right? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:59 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:59 PM thank you, when I read the title it said "Semi-auto gun ban". In a sense that is what it is, but you never know with Cook. They may just decide to make firearms illegal... Wacko's. It had me worried that the banned ALL semi auto weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:28 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:28 PM It had me worried that the banned ALL semi auto weapons. "Semi-auto ban" in a sense? It is precisely that, as it bans a bunch of semiauto guns. It should worry you. If they think they can ban some of them, they think they can ban all of them. Your Garand is every bit as lethal as an AK47 ... in fact, more so. It is every bit as possible to use it unlawfully as to use an AK unlawfully. The people who brought you the ban on semiauto AK47s would be very happy indeed to bring you a ban on your M1 Garand. And that is a fact. Three cheers to Wilson et al, for taking on this egregious and spiteful infringement upon the freedoms of law-abiding Cook county citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:48 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:48 PM It had me worried that the banned ALL semi auto weapons. "Semi-auto ban" in a sense? It is precisely that, as it bans a bunch of semiauto guns. It should worry you. If they think they can ban some of them, they think they can ban all of them. Your Garand is every bit as lethal as an AK47 ... in fact, more so. It is every bit as possible to use it unlawfully as to use an AK unlawfully. The people who brought you the ban on semiauto AK47s would be very happy indeed to bring you a ban on your M1 Garand. And that is a fact. Three cheers to Wilson et al, for taking on this egregious and spiteful infringement upon the freedoms of law-abiding Cook county citizens.the cook county ban is so loosely worded its not even much of a stretch to say it already bans garands, youd only have to argue that it "has the capacity to accept" a larger clip there was someone else here who tried to register an SKS in chicago, it met every requirement for a legal rifle, but they wouldnt let him register it, effectively making it an illegal (unregistered) firearm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:31 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:31 PM It had me worried that the banned ALL semi auto weapons. "Semi-auto ban" in a sense? It is precisely that, as it bans a bunch of semiauto guns. It should worry you. If they think they can ban some of them, they think they can ban all of them. Your Garand is every bit as lethal as an AK47 ... in fact, more so. It is every bit as possible to use it unlawfully as to use an AK unlawfully. The people who brought you the ban on semiauto AK47s would be very happy indeed to bring you a ban on your M1 Garand. And that is a fact. Three cheers to Wilson et al, for taking on this egregious and spiteful infringement upon the freedoms of law-abiding Cook county citizens.the cook county ban is so loosely worded its not even much of a stretch to say it already bans garands, youd only have to argue that it "has the capacity to accept" a larger clip there was someone else here who tried to register an SKS in chicago, it met every requirement for a legal rifle, but they wouldnt let him register it, effectively making it an illegal (unregistered) firearm Why the Garand is unquestionably legal when compared to this law: It cannot accept a higher capacity magazine. It is limited to 8 rounds. Unless some serious modification is done, it is an 8 round rifle at best. \ I also do not have to register firearms in my municipality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:36 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:36 PM In reference to the law: The Garand may only take 8. Large capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds.(2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. The general definitions: Assault weapon means:(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;( Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;© A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; While the Garand is semi automatic it can only accept an 8 our under clip. Since it cannot accept more, the law does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:41 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:41 PM Why the Garand is unquestionably legal when compared to this law: It cannot accept a higher capacity magazine. It is limited to 8 rounds. Unless some serious modification is done, it is an 8 round rifle at best. \ I also do not have to register firearms in my municipality.thats what im talking about, someone could argue that any firearm could be modified, and this "has the capacity to accept" a large magazine the law is worded very loosely to pretty much allow them to ban any gun at will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:42 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:42 PM For what it's worth: Here's the Chicago AWB case in question: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24527 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:44 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:44 PM Why the Garand is unquestionably legal when compared to this law: It cannot accept a higher capacity magazine. It is limited to 8 rounds. Unless some serious modification is done, it is an 8 round rifle at best. \ I also do not have to register firearms in my municipality.thats what im talking about, someone could argue that any firearm could be modified, and this "has the capacity to accept" a large magazine the law is worded very loosely to pretty much allow them to ban any gun at will Modifications are illegal, I could also argue my Garand is permanently set up for 8 rounds. As it is. I would need a new receiver to accept a magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:51 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:51 PM Modifications are illegal, I could also argue my Garand is permanently set up for 8 rounds. As it is. I would need a new receiver to accept a magazine.well as i said, check out FF's case http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24527 (thanks mstrat for the link) SKS permanently modified with a fixed magazine, deemed unregisterable my point is that the law is worded loosely so a LEO, SA or anyone could argue that nearly any semi automatic firearm is illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:54 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:54 PM Very true, but I think the SKS is an "evil" military rifle. Which is really what they are after. But I agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:02 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:02 PM Very true, but I think the SKS is an "evil" military rifle. Which is really what they are after. But I agree with youso that makes the M1 a "good" military rifle? lol i guess as long as it isnt painted black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:04 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:04 PM Hahahaha! It's true. Was the mag capacity under 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:10 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:10 PM I think the real big difference is that the SKS could easily be re modified to take a larger magazine. The M1 cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:34 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:34 PM Plenty of posts, but is there anything we could do to help forward this case? Is the ISRA on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:53 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:53 PM In reference to the law: The Garand may only take 8. Large capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds.(2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. The general definitions: Assault weapon means:(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;( Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;© A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; While the Garand is semi automatic it can only accept an 8 our under clip. Since it cannot accept more, the law does not apply. That holds true for SKS with fixed box mags ... until they argue that they can be modified to accept detachable mags holding more than 10. And that is precisely what was argued during a recent hearing regarding the registerability of SKS. I'm just playing with you ... yes Garands are currently legal until someone in power wants to ban them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM Share Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:54 PM I think the real big difference is that the SKS could easily be re modified to take a larger magazine. The M1 cannot. The heck it can't. It's a machine ... it can be modified in almost any way imaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 11, 2011 at 02:07 AM Share Posted May 11, 2011 at 02:07 AM In reference to the law: The Garand may only take 8. Large capacity magazine means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include the following:(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds.(2) A 22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. The general definitions: Assault weapon means:(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;( Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;© A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; While the Garand is semi automatic it can only accept an 8 our under clip. Since it cannot accept more, the law does not apply. That holds true for SKS with fixed box mags ... until they argue that they can be modified to accept detachable mags holding more than 10. And that is precisely what was argued during a recent hearing regarding the registerability of SKS. I'm just playing with you ... yes Garands are currently legal until someone in power wants to ban them. And that is the difference. The M1 Garand has a true internal fixed magazine not capable of holding more than 10 rounds. I can see an M1A being illegal though, since it can readily, without any modification, accept 20 rds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted May 11, 2011 at 07:40 PM Share Posted May 11, 2011 at 07:40 PM This is why we all need to support ISRA because this ordinance makes less sense than any other gun hating ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 11, 2011 at 08:11 PM Share Posted May 11, 2011 at 08:11 PM Agreed. I wrote the ISRA asking where this is right now, where we stand. I am trying to get some of my friends to join, one may, the others probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Moran Posted May 16, 2011 at 06:15 PM Share Posted May 16, 2011 at 06:15 PM This case has been financially funded through the ISRA since before it was first filed. We will know before the end of the month if the Illinois Supreme Court will hear it. For those of you questioning whether a Garand is banned? In order to know, you need to know the definition of a shroud... You may think you know, but in this ordinance it is so poorly defined, that the upper handguard of the Garand, my very well be perceived as a shroud, thus banning this firearm. So, no one knows for sure, least of all your average LEO who would be the person making the first determination. That's one of the reason's the ordinance is vulnerable in the courts, its arbitrary and capricious. Don MoranPresidentIllinois State Rifle Assn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR1987 Posted May 16, 2011 at 07:02 PM Share Posted May 16, 2011 at 07:02 PM Ahh but the Garand, as it is manufactured does not have the ability to accept large capacity mags. Regardless, my town is home rule, and no capacity bans or assault weapons bans exist. However I want to see this nonsense overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted May 25, 2011 at 09:37 PM Share Posted May 25, 2011 at 09:37 PM FYI, this morning SCOIL accepted the case!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.