442 replies to this topic

[mstrat]

Davey, on 05 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So...they kicked it back down for the lower courts to figure out?

Yep.  Basically they said the lower courts can't ignore the and dismiss the case the way they did.  They need to consider its merits with respect to the rights protected by the 2nd amendment.

*sigh*. Now we get to wait a lonnnnng time for the lower court to rule against us, then have it appealed again. For a 3rd time.

[Getzapped]

Wow!  3 court cases in one month!  It seems that all of these judges just want these cases out of their courts!  None of them will take a stand!  i am not sure what remanded means, i assume it is just being passed onto another court?

[GarandFan]

Yeah ... their opinion was that plaintiffs may well have second amendment grounds to overturn the ban ... but that the evidence for and against overturning the ban needs to be worked out in more detail in the lower courts.

So we certainly didn't lose on this issue ... but it will take a lot more time and litigation.

[Uncle Harley]

Davey, on 05 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

So...they kicked it back down for the lower courts to figure out?

basically  yeah

[Getzapped]

Why have the courts become so stagnant with 2a issues?  Or is it just illinois courts?

[Druid]

The Chicago Tribune is marking it up as a success for us.
story

[abolt243]

Getzapped, on 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Wow!  3 court cases in one month!  It seems that all of these judges just want these cases out of their courts!  None of them will take a stand!  i am not sure what remanded means, i assume it is just being passed onto another court?

Make it even more important to remember that in some cases, Judges are elected!!  One needs to do some homework on those running and their background before blindly voting for someone or not voting at all in that race.

Also remember, those that are not elected are appointed.  Usually by elected officials.  Those officials will appoint people that most closely hold the same positions on issues that the elected officials do.  

Votes have consequences, some that last a lifetime!!!

Vote intelligently.

Tim

[Davey]

Druid, on 05 April 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The Chicago Tribune is marking it up as a success for us.
story

Whiskey tango foxtrot?!

Side note...how the hell are we supposed to make progress if these courts keep passing the buck to someone else?

Edited by Davey, 05 April 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[Davey]

abolt243, on 05 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Also remember, those that are not elected are appointed.  Usually by elected officials.  Those officials will appoint people that most closely hold the same positions on issues that the elected officials do.  

Exactly why we need to send Obama packing.  Colbert and Jon Stewart shows have both poked fun at us for fearing Obama's attack on our gun rights.  They always say that he hasn't pushed any laws or made any moves against us.  We all know this to be false.  Hell, even my own wife won't listen to me.

[Molly B.]

Druid, on 05 April 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The Chicago Tribune is marking it up as a success for us.
story

It is indeed a success for us in that we can proceed to challenge the ban on a Second Amendment basis - but
this sure is a very slow and frustrating way to get things done.

[Jason4567]

Molly B., on 05 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Druid, on 05 April 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The Chicago Tribune is marking it up as a success for us.
story

It is indeed a success for us in that we can proceed to challenge the ban on a Second Amendment basis - but
this sure is a very slow and frustrating way to get things done.

Wait, why do we need the illinois state supreme court to give us permission to challenge laws that violate the US constitution?

[Molly B.]

Jason4567, on 05 April 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Molly B., on 05 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Druid, on 05 April 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The Chicago Tribune is marking it up as a success for us.
story

It is indeed a success for us in that we can proceed to challenge the ban on a Second Amendment basis - but
this sure is a very slow and frustrating way to get things done.

Wait, why do we need the illinois state supreme court to give us permission to challenge laws that violate the US constitution?

The IL Supreme Court didn't give us permission to challenge - they said the lower courts were wrong to dismiss it and it must go back for a fair hearing.

[Federal Farmer]

I wonder if a challenge to Chicago's AWB might not be easier and quicker.  Chicago's AWB is much simpler:

“Assault weapon” means:

          (1)     A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
               (i)     a folding or telescoping stock
               (ii)    a handgun grip which protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
               (iii)   a bayonet mount
               (iv)    a flash suppressor or a barrel having a threaded muzzle
               (v)     a grenade launcher; or

          (2)     A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
               (i)     a folding or telescoping stock
               (ii)    a handgun grip which protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
               (iii)   a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
               (iv)    an ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

          (3)     A semiautomatic handgun that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
               (i)     an ammunition magazine that attaches to the handgun outside the handgun grip
               (ii)    a barrel having a threaded muzzle
               (iii)   a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel, and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
               (iv)    a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the handgun is unloaded
               (v)     a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

[LongPurple]

In skimming through the Wilson  v.  County of Cook decision, written by the "temporary"  Justice Mary Jane Theis, I detected a certain captious attitude toward the HELLER and MCDONALD decisions of SCOTUS.  Leaving aside any 2 A. interpretive dispute the good Temporary Justice (to confer a title) has with SCOTUS, there were some rather “cutesy” remarks directed at these decisions.

For example, in her opinion, the TJ (to confer an abbreviation of a title) quoted from HELLER:

“. . .longstanding [sic] prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons. . . “.

Ah yes, “[sic]” – with the meaning “I know it is incorrect, but 'sic erat' in the original.  Do not blame me for the error”.

A little below this quotation, we are instructed on the “correct”  form, by an example:

“ The Court declined to explain what it meant by 'long-standing'. . .”

(One can almost hear,  “SEE, this is how it should be --- with a hyphen.”)

This illustration of  linguistic rectitude is presented while we are simultaneously given a criticism of the Heller Opinion, in the opinion of the TJ, who writes the opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court

I learned long ago that English is a language of traditions rather than rules.  One of these longstanding traditions, as opposed to recently established elements of English such as the neologism "assault weapon" or the recently coined  title “Ms.” ( I hope I have explained what I mean by “longstanding” to the satisfaction of the good TJ),  is the transition over time, from two words to one, as explained here:

“A common pattern is that two words — fire fly, say — will be joined by a hyphen for a time — fire-fly — and then be joined into one word — firefly.”

The TJ has apparently judged, or has been advised by some authoritative source for good usage and style, that “long” and “standing” have not had long enough of an engagement to be married into “longstanding”.  She has, however, deemed them to have dated long enough to be engaged by a hyphen, and not separated by that duenna of a space.

I find it more a matter of personal choice, which causes no loss of meaning, whichever form of “longstanding” one may prefer.  Both hyphenated and unhyphenated forms may be found in various dictionaries. Anyone who assumes to be an authoritative arbitrator in the matter of “hyphen/no hyphen” in this case foolishly assumes more authority than could ever be granted to anyone in such matters.  

If this opinion, with all its inclination to criticize HELLER and MCDONALD even on so small a matter as a hyphen,  is any reflection of the Illinois Supreme Court's leanings on RKBA, then it is certain to be an anti-gunrights * decision that will eventually come from this Court.

*
Maybe  “anti-gun-rights, anti-gun rights, antigun/anti-gun “ ?   Of course, guns don't have rights, the people do, and laws are not really passed “against guns” but against the people who wish to lawfully keep and bear them, so I will settle for  “anti-2 A. decision”.

Edited by LongPurple, 13 April 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[mstrat]

When in doubt, or in grey area, "[sic]" should not be used.  IMO it's reserved for the most egregious errors.

"Longstanding," both with and without the hyphen, is in the New Oxford American Dictionary.  That's more than adequate for leaving it be, and not "correcting" it.

[Jeff Johnson]

LongPurple, welcome to the forum. Your post was interesting but it gave me a headache.

[pyre400]

Welcome, LongPurple!

I enjoyed your post. It illustrates the subtle, but deliberate...

[LongPurple]

mstrat, on 13 April 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

When in doubt, or in grey area, "[sic]" should not be used.  IMO it's reserved for the most egregious errors.

"Longstanding," both with and without the hyphen, is in the New Oxford American Dictionary.  That's more than adequate for leaving it be, and not "correcting" it.

Thank you for your reply and concurrence.

I found it significant that so minor a detail in HELLER could be attacked so unjustly from so feeble, if not outright foolish, a position as that taken in the opinion.  It indicates not only a predisposition against HELLER and MCDONALD by the Illinois Supreme Court, but a desperate need to disparage the SCOTUS decisions in any way possible.    

IMO, this is a case of overreach that has backfired on the Illinois Court, and tends to make the Court's opinion and all who endorse it in its entirety appear ludicrous.  Yes, it may be a victory in that the lower court was told it may not ignore 2 A. implications, but certainly no guarantee that RKBA will be recognized at any level of Court in Illinois.  I see it as no more than a delaying tactic.

[LongPurple]

Jeff Johnson, on 13 April 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

LongPurple, welcome to the forum. Your post was interesting but it gave me a headache.

Thank you for your reply and welcome.

Sorry if I caused you any discomfort, but “No pain, no gain”.  Minds, muscles, and Constitutional Rights ----  all have to be exercised to keep them in good working condition.

[LongPurple]

pyre400, on 13 April 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Welcome, LongPurple!

I enjoyed your post. It illustrates the subtle, but deliberate...

Thank you for your reply and welcome.
Personally, I did not find much subtlety in the opinion, but an oozing of  snide, supercilious, and rather juvenile attempts to belittle HELLER and MCDONALD, probably as groundwork for the Court's anticipated future ruling in the case.

[GarandFan]

Druid and others ... where does this case stand right now?

[Vaden]

Well after being innundated with sweet ARs for sale on armslist and realizing that I live in one of the very few areas in the whole friggin country that I cant have one in my house, I did some more reading up on Blair Holt AWB. I finally found something that makes me realize why this may be a good law. Along with hi capacity assault ammunition (sounds scarey) and fully automatic weapons running rampant (because everyone can drop 12k on a 30 year old military rifle) the most terrifying thing  found was what the actual meaning to the ridiculous claim of "the shoulder thing that goes up" mean....and I dont like it.

[Xwing]

Vaden, on 12 June 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

the most terrifying thing  found was what the actual meaning to the ridiculous claim of "the shoulder thing that goes up" mean....and I dont like it.

Evidently, Congresswoman McCarthy was watching too many Predator Movies when she explained the “scary features” bans.  Makes more sense than any other reason…

[officedrone]

Anyone have any updates on this?

[Chicago Guy 77]

officedrone, on 19 August 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Anyone have any updates on this?

Where do we stand on this as of now?

[abolt243]

As far as I can tell right now, and according to this update from the ISRA, it's been returned to the first appellate court of Illinois with the instruction to vacate their previous opinion and reconsider in light of Heller and McDonald.

Supreme court decision was returned 4/5/12.  Who knows when the appellate will get around to reconsidering and passing down another decision?

[Talonap]

Maybe this may be covered in some way in the CCW bill? Or not......

[Davey]

Talonap, on 12 December 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Maybe this may be covered in some way in the CCW bill? Or not......

They will probably try to trade a ban for CC.

[Chicago Guy 77]

No tread, we're up +1!

[Capt_Destro]

I really want this stupid AWB to be off the books. I feel bad people can be considered criminals just because they have a 6 position or thumb hole stock.

I really want a ruling on this, maybe it could indirectly effect other states.

Edited by Capt_Destro, 12 December 2012 - 08:44 PM.