442 replies to this topic

[Sigma]

I got a weird feeling about this one for some reason

[Federal Farmer]

Sigma, on 22 December 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

I got a weird feeling about this one for some reason

Weird-good or weird-bad?

[stm]

Federal Farmer, on 23 December 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

Sigma, on 22 December 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

I got a weird feeling about this one for some reason

Weird-good or weird-bad?

Or weird-Gary-Busey?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Edited by stm, 23 December 2011 - 12:41 PM.

[Druid]

I've talked with many well educated (lawyers/professors) gun-enthusiasts about this case, and there is definitely no consensus among them on how good or bad this case will end.

[bob]

Druid, on 23 December 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

I've talked with many well educated (lawyers/professors) gun-enthusiasts about this case, and there is definitely no consensus among them on how good or bad this case will end.

These kind of cases are a crap shoot. There is just no way to tell what SCOTUS is going to come up with. There is a lot of politics in judicial decisions, both internal and external, that make trailblazing cases hard to tell what might happen.

One would think the "arms in common use" wording in Heller would make this a no brainer.

But few thought that Roe V. Wade was a winner either. I had hoped that the tortured logic in Roe would eventually result in more respect from government for the basic privacy rights of citizens in other areas, but it has gone dramatically in the other way. Basically, it appears that the courts are saying the only privacy rights you have are WRT abortion. And that is pretty much the way governments at all levels have headed, with occassional exceptions from state legislatures. But even then, it is small exceptions here and there and no recognition of the basic right of citizens to be left alone from government instrusion into their lives.

[Bud]

bob, on 24 December 2011 - 09:08 AM, said:

These kind of cases are a crap shoot. There is just no way to tell what SCOTUS is going to come up with. There is a lot of politics in judicial decisions, both internal and external, that make trailblazing cases hard to tell what might happen.

This isn't a SCOTUS case (It's the IL supreme Court) and Roe v Wade was an entirely different set of Justices. I doubt seriously if Roe v. Wade would pass this SCOTUS.

and an abortion conversation will totally derail this thread.

[Sigma]

IF Wilson wins can you imagine the next crap the county will come up with to prevent us from owning these human killing machines

[mauserme]

Hey bob, back in June you were really pushing the coming elections as the best way to reach our goal.  You even stated in this thread that you would be happy to help.

Well my friend, here's your chance.  If you take a look at my election survey thread you'll see how helpful you can be.

So I say jump right in - the water's fine.

[mikew]

Everyone should know that we have a forum member who is one of the plaintiffs in Wilson v Cook County.
Most of us know that already, and we have two plaintiffs from McDonald V Chicago on the forum.

[Danielm60660]

So if Wilson wins, what does this mean? Are semi autos going to be legal until and unless the SCOTUS reverses it? Could a guy move an AR into Chicago right after?
DM

[NakPPI]

My understanding is that they are appealing an order that dismissed the case. So if that is true, and plaintiffs win on appeal, the case would simply be sent to the trial court for further proceedings. The case would basically start from the beginning.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Bud]

Danielm60660, on 06 January 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

So if Wilson wins, what does this mean? Are semi autos going to be legal until and unless the SCOTUS reverses it? Could a guy move an AR into Chicago right after?
DM

If the Illinois Supreme Court throws out the Cook County ban, there is a very good likelihood that it is "game over" and the law would be gone. . The Cook County Board could have to wring their hands and rip great gobs of hair from their heads but there would be very little they could do about it. They could try and pass a new ordinance depending on how the decision is written.

[Sigma]

ha, budman said they could try to pass a new ordinance.
Its guaranteed, and will be our newest challenge

[Danielm60660]

NakPPI and Budman, you have distinctly different answers.  Can either clarify? I'm hoping for a Wilson win either way, but I hate to see this drag out for another 1.5 years.
Thanks,
DM

[Danielm60660]

Ok, I re-read some of the original posts. I think I'm squared away on it.
DM

[Druid]

Ready?
Tomorrow is a big day for this case. Oral arguments should begin tomorrow Wed. the 18th at approx. 9:30AM. We expect it to be over around 2:30pm. I'm told that afterwards, a video recording of the arguments will be posted online at the Supreme Court of Illinois website. A lot of great people have been working very hard on this case, and tomorrow we shall see how well it goes!

[abolt243]

Druid, on 17 January 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Ready?
Tomorrow is a big day for this case. Oral arguments should begin tomorrow Wed. the 18th at approx. 9:30AM. We expect it to be over around 2:30pm. I'm told that afterwards, a video recording of the arguments will be posted online at the Supreme Court of Illinois website. A lot of great people have been working very hard on this case, and tomorrow we shall see how well it goes!

Good luck.  Keep us posted.

Tim

[Molly B.]

Best of luck to you all!!!  Thank you for taking on Cook County!!

[Federal Farmer]

Druid, on 17 January 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Ready?
Tomorrow is a big day for this case. Oral arguments should begin tomorrow Wed. the 18th at approx. 9:30AM. We expect it to be over around 2:30pm. I'm told that afterwards, a video recording of the arguments will be posted online at the Supreme Court of Illinois website. A lot of great people have been working very hard on this case, and tomorrow we shall see how well it goes!

We're with you!

[Howard Roark]

Druid, on 17 January 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Ready?
Tomorrow is a big day for this case. Oral arguments should begin tomorrow Wed. the 18th at approx. 9:30AM. We expect it to be over around 2:30pm. I'm told that afterwards, a video recording of the arguments will be posted online at the Supreme Court of Illinois website. A lot of great people have been working very hard on this case, and tomorrow we shall see how well it goes!

Thank you for being a plaintiff (the lead plaintiff) on this. You're the man! I think we're going to win this one too.

[Mr. Fife]

Good luck! I hope to hear some good news next time I log in.  

Edited by Mr. Fife, 18 January 2012 - 01:55 PM.

[JackTripper]

Stupid question-
This is in Springfield, right?

[Hatchet]

Best of luck my friend.

[stm]

Hatchet, on 18 January 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Best of luck my friend.

Good luck!

[Druid]

JackTripper, on 18 January 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

Stupid question-
This is in Springfield, right?

Yes.

[Druid]

A couple days ago the legal team held Moot Court (practice), and former Illinois Governor Jim Thompson played Judge.

[Tvandermyde]

My sources from the court room said:

that cook did a poor job of making arguements
That the 3 cook county judges were looking for a way not to rule on the 2A issue and remand it back for further hearings
That on a question from the chief judge, someone admitted thatthe gun inHeller would be illegal under the ordinance
That thomas could be the swing vote
Most likely outcome maybe ruling that the ordinance is preempted under the wildlife code or remand

[Federal Farmer]

Tvandermyde, on 18 January 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

My sources from the court room said:

that cook did a poor job of making arguements
That the 3 cook county judges were looking for a way not to rule on the 2A issue and remand it back for further hearings
That on a question from the chief judge, someone admitted thatthe gun inHeller would be illegal under the ordinance
That thomas could be the swing vote
Most likely outcome maybe ruling that the ordinance is preempted under the wildlife code or remand

Odd, as I recall the gun in Heller as being a 9-shot .22 revolver...

[JackTripper]

Tvandermyde, on 18 January 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

My sources from the court room said:

that cook did a poor job of making arguements
That the 3 cook county judges were looking for a way not to rule on the 2A issue and remand it back for further hearings
That on a question from the chief judge, someone admitted thatthe gun inHeller would be illegal under the ordinance
That thomas could be the swing vote
Most likely outcome maybe ruling that the ordinance is preempted under the wildlife code or remand

Say hello to another year of waiting  

[NakPPI]

My reading of the appellate brief made me think that the trial judge erred on some basic procedural issues that should have resulted in a remand. If this goes back to the trial court based on messing up the code of civil procedure I will cry inside.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk