Sweeper13 Posted January 17, 2020 at 03:25 AM Share Posted January 17, 2020 at 03:25 AM 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.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2020/1st/011420_1-18-1846.mp3?fbclid=IwAR2tKUYajjZ_NVc8NQED8gfR_K3MWEOoM4VwaRK7vNTgT04PDYTWZq37BDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted January 17, 2020 at 01:19 PM Share Posted January 17, 2020 at 01:19 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted January 17, 2020 at 03:09 PM Share Posted January 17, 2020 at 03:09 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo69 Posted January 17, 2020 at 11:10 PM Share Posted January 17, 2020 at 11:10 PM Illinois just uses the working citizens as their personal ATMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddan Posted January 18, 2020 at 06:29 PM Share Posted January 18, 2020 at 06:29 PM Highlights, cleaned-up audio, and a transcript here:https://blog.maxonshooters.com/blog/continuing-the-fight-to-end-the-cook-county-firearms-and-ammo-tax The good guys had a good day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted January 18, 2020 at 08:43 PM Share Posted January 18, 2020 at 08:43 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 *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted January 23, 2020 at 10:12 PM Author Share Posted January 23, 2020 at 10:12 PM For those that want a breakdown. Link from Illinois Carry FB. https://blog.maxonshooters.com/blog/continuing-the-fight-to-end-the-cook-county-firearms-and-ammo-tax?fbclid=IwAR18LCtwHcVi01kvnCGC8-Cj3XUSg_wEFIJ7haY2FC1l-T-TQEaQoZ0wu1k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted January 25, 2020 at 05:41 AM Share Posted January 25, 2020 at 05:41 AM They will tax Catholics next. Millions of those wallets in Crook County! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted January 25, 2020 at 03:05 PM Share Posted January 25, 2020 at 03:05 PM The cook county tax is all about crony enrichment, nothing more. More money for cronies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANDY Posted January 25, 2020 at 03:50 PM Share Posted January 25, 2020 at 03:50 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted January 27, 2020 at 01:48 PM Share Posted January 27, 2020 at 01:48 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted January 28, 2020 at 01:49 PM Share Posted January 28, 2020 at 01:49 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted January 28, 2020 at 06:49 PM Share Posted January 28, 2020 at 06:49 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted January 28, 2020 at 08:35 PM Share Posted January 28, 2020 at 08:35 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 19, 2020 at 04:37 PM Share Posted March 19, 2020 at 04:37 PM Appellate Court rules in favor of Cook Co. Cook Ammo Tax Lawsuit.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted March 19, 2020 at 04:54 PM Share Posted March 19, 2020 at 04:54 PM shocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted March 19, 2020 at 05:01 PM Share Posted March 19, 2020 at 05:01 PM Was there ever any doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted March 19, 2020 at 05:35 PM Share Posted March 19, 2020 at 05:35 PM Where do they take it next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted March 20, 2020 at 05:44 AM Share Posted March 20, 2020 at 05:44 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. That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head. I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted March 20, 2020 at 02:55 PM Share Posted March 20, 2020 at 02:55 PM What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted March 20, 2020 at 09:32 PM Share Posted March 20, 2020 at 09:32 PM What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?Be careful !! You don't want to give them any more ideas, do you ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted March 20, 2020 at 09:56 PM Share Posted March 20, 2020 at 09:56 PM What a load of crap. Under this tax analysis, a state, county or municipality could lawfully impose a tax strictly and solely upon the the purchase of bibles, and tax a higher rate for the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) than for the Hebrew bible. Gee, how do you think THAT would go over?Be careful !! You don't want to give them any more ideas, do you ?? That's actually something that I HOPE some idiots in a municipal or state-level government tries, because once that is shot down as unconstitutional, then there will be precedent that any such tax on a Constitutional right or freedom would be similarly unconstitutional, and could be used to end this kind of stupidity once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted March 23, 2020 at 02:40 PM Share Posted March 23, 2020 at 02:40 PM 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. That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head. I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all. But how long will that all take? It's death by 1000 cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted March 24, 2020 at 09:24 PM Share Posted March 24, 2020 at 09:24 PM 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. That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head. I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all. Our supreme court considers it a right. Johnson vs ISP "Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court: We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii)." http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70079&do=findComment&comment=1246315 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.