Jump to content

Wilson v. Cook County (Semi-Auto Gun Ban)


Tvandermyde

Recommended Posts

He didnt have to.

He followed 7CA precedent. He is correct in that this case is very similar to Friedman.

There are only two fixes for this - gambling on SCOTUS or changing the legislature. SCOTUS will remain a gamble after Kavanaugh is placed until Ginsburg croaks. Assuming we hold the senate this November, which Im not feeling good about.

Or a third - move out of Illinois. If JB wins we will get more state wide restrictions.

He had to, it's his job to follow the Constitution. Just because another court ignored the Constitution and people's rights, doesn't mean he can do the same. Don't defend him, there's no excuse for what he did. He lied and labeled semi automatic rifles made for civilians, machine guns and sawed off shotguns, same as the county is doing. He is an activist judge who could care less about the constitution and people's rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably more "pro-regulation" than most on here...but I do have an issue with the particular argument the judge used.

 

In their challenge, the plaintiff’s alleged that the ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment. The judge, however, wrote, “The Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to possess a type of weapon (such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun) that the government would not expect citizens to bring with them when called to serve in the militia.”

 

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns? No one in Illinois would show up with a machine gun or a sawed off shot gun (less than 18"s) in Illinois because they are already illegal to own in the state.

 

Outside of shotguns, my assumption is that a huge chunk of people would show up with AR-15's, followed by AK-47's, and some Mini-14's (which are technically not assault weapons).

 

If the judge wants to argue organized vs unorganized militia, I could understand that. But what he stated makes zero sense. The most common rifle sold today is basically what our military uses (minus full auto)....so...I'm not sure what point the judge is trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have stated above, the court dismissed Wilson vs. Cook County because of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Friedman v. Highland Park.

 

It's a bad result, but not unexpected at this court.

 

After reading the order, I see the judge clearly made many errors and stated wrong facts.

 

Next step: Appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably more "pro-regulation" than most on here...but I do have an issue with the particular argument the judge used.

 

In their challenge, the plaintiff’s alleged that the ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment. The judge, however, wrote, “The Second Amendment does not guarantee a private right to possess a type of weapon (such as a machine gun or a sawed-off shotgun) that the government would not expect citizens to bring with them when called to serve in the militia.”

 

Machine guns and sawed off shotguns? No one in Illinois would show up with a machine gun or a sawed off shot gun (less than 18"s) in Illinois because they are already illegal to own in the state.

 

Outside of shotguns, my assumption is that a huge chunk of people would show up with AR-15's, followed by AK-47's, and some Mini-14's (which are technically not assault weapons).

 

If the judge wants to argue organized vs unorganized militia, I could understand that. But what he stated makes zero sense. The most common rifle sold today is basically what our military uses (minus full auto)....so...I'm not sure what point the judge is trying to make.

The opinion by McRenolds in US v Miller contains the following, which the anti's used for decades to mean that you had no RKBA:

 

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

But in fact a short barrel shotgun was extremely effective in the war fought just 20 years prior to this, in trench warfare.

 

There was simply no one there to argue for the defense in this case. (US v Miller, 1939) This remained the last 2nd Amendment case with a SCOTUS ruling until DC v Heller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

But in fact a short barrel shotgun was extremely effective in the war fought just 20 years prior to this, in trench warfare.

...

Unfortunately there is little documentation of the use of shotguns ("trench guns") in WW I. No photographs exist of American soldiers even in the same frame as a shotgun. Historians have conjectured the War Department issued an order to destroy any such evidence, because that's the only way to explain the lack of documentation. There are photos of shotguns, clearly in a trench environment, but only the guns themselves, no people.

 

The use of "trench guns" was banned by the Hague Convention, which the US did not sign. Nevertheless, when the British and French used them, the Germans did not object. When Americans used them, however, the Germans objected, so it became a politically sensitive topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 months later...
ISRA Headline News







7575p5280EDNthumbimg-ISRA_logo_full-colo

ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 28, 2019

by Richard Pearson

In the heat of all the anti-gun activity in Springfield, it is important to remember the Illinois State Rifle Association is moving forward on the litigation front. I am pleased to announce the suit against Cook County and their so-called assault weapons ban is again moving forward. The case known as Wilson v Cook County will be argued before the Seventh Circuit on April 4th, 2019. For those who might not recall, the Seventh Circuit is a Federal Court with the next stop being the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).









Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see this case is moving forward.

 

The only problem that I see is this case was filed in 2010 and it hasn't been resolved. I think second amendment cases that prohibit a constitutional right should be heard a lot sooner and resolved a lot quicker.

 

If this would have been a first amendment case against the right to free speech it would have been resolved years ago. SMH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ISRA Headline News
7575p5280EDNthumbimg-ISRA_logo_full-colo ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 28, 2019 by Richard Pearson

In the heat of all the anti-gun activity in Springfield, it is important to remember the Illinois State Rifle Association is moving forward on the litigation front. I am pleased to announce the suit against Cook County and their so-called assault weapons ban is again moving forward. The case known as Wilson v Cook County will be argued before the Seventh Circuit on April 4th, 2019. For those who might not recall, the Seventh Circuit is a Federal Court with the next stop being the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

 

 

How, if at all, can this help with curtailing the idiocy like the proposed anti-semi-auto ban and 10-round+ magazine bans that are currently being pushed in the ILGA? Would a favorable ruling scuttle those pieces of legislative stupidity and rights trampling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we've seen, lawsuit or not, SCOTUS ruling or not, they'll just move towards a state-wide ban and the Cook County ban can be struck down. It won't bother them one bit.

I just wish we could find a way to allow ownership of MG's in the state, like so many other states allow as long as you pay Uncle Sam for the privilege to own/possess them..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

ISRA Headline News
7575p5280EDNthumbimg-ISRA_logo_full-colo ISRA Thursday Bulletin - February 28, 2019 by Richard Pearson

In the heat of all the anti-gun activity in Springfield, it is important to remember the Illinois State Rifle Association is moving forward on the litigation front. I am pleased to announce the suit against Cook County and their so-called assault weapons ban is again moving forward. The case known as Wilson v Cook County will be argued before the Seventh Circuit on April 4th, 2019. For those who might not recall, the Seventh Circuit is a Federal Court with the next stop being the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

 

 

How, if at all, can this help with curtailing the idiocy like the proposed anti-semi-auto ban and 10-round+ magazine bans that are currently being pushed in the ILGA? Would a favorable ruling scuttle those pieces of legislative stupidity and rights trampling?

 

We can hope for a clean ruling which settles all of the so-called AWB issues once and for all, but the Court has a way of crafting excruciatingly narrow decisions which handle one case without providing much guidance on what to do with the next, apparently similar, one. There's no telling what they'll do with this one (assuming they grant cert, which is by no means a foregone conclusion). The best thing to do is just sit back and watch the show. It's gonna be a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the Illinois militia would require for us to show up with if there was an Illinois militia? Is there an Illinois militia?

 

Since this was brought up, I can answer this question.

 

YES. There is an Illinois State Militia. And I was once a member and had a membership card that was signed

by the state Attorney General. I was mustered in when I was a Civil War reenactor and was a member of

Battery G, 2nd Illinois Light Artillery out of Stillman Valley Illinois. Since I no longer am an active member,

I assume that I am no longer a part of the Illinois State Militia.

 

And before someone asks. . . NO, I don't have the card. Or, at least I cannot find it. So I can't post a picture of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder what the Illinois militia would require for us to show up with if there was an Illinois militia? Is there an Illinois militia?

 

Since this was brought up, I can answer this question.

 

YES. There is an Illinois State Militia. And I was once a member and had a membership card that was signed

by the state Attorney General. I was mustered in when I was a Civil War reenactor and was a member of

Battery G, 2nd Illinois Light Artillery out of Stillman Valley Illinois. Since I no longer am an active member,

I assume that I am no longer a part of the Illinois State Militia.

 

And before someone asks. . . NO, I don't have the card. Or, at least I cannot find it. So I can't post a picture of it.

 

 

Illinois (state) Constitution Article XII: Section 1. Membership: "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...