442 replies to this topic

[Talonap]

abolt243, on 01 October 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

Talonap, on 01 October 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

Does anyone know of an "Opinion Number" or something like that? It would be interesting to read the entire decision. (Couldn't find anything on the Il Supreme Court site.)

The appellate decision or the supreme order sending it back to the appellate?

AB

The Supreme Order. (Sounds so 1984'ish) :-)

[abolt243]

Talonap, on 01 October 2010 - 08:15 PM, said:

abolt243, on 01 October 2010 - 06:38 PM, said:

Talonap, on 01 October 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

Does anyone know of an "Opinion Number" or something like that? It would be interesting to read the entire decision. (Couldn't find anything on the Il Supreme Court site.)

The appellate decision or the supreme order sending it back to the appellate?

AB

The Supreme Order. (Sounds so 1984'ish) :-)

Google up the Illinois Court site.  Go to the Illinois Courts twitter account.  Scroll down to the Sept 29, 2010 "Leave to Appeal Dispositions".  Scroll through that document down to No. 109314.  (Hint, there are two cases with parties named "Wilson".  Make sure you get the right number.  That's all there is, not much to read.

AB

[Talonap]

[quote name='abolt243' date='01 October 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1285986753' post='230108']
[quote name='Talonap' date='01 October 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1285985728' post='230107']
[quote name='abolt243' date='01 October 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1285979939' post='230098']
[quote name='Talonap' date='01 October 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1285969759' post='230085']
Does anyone know of an "Opinion Number" or something like that? It would be interesting to read the entire decision. (Couldn't find anything on the Il Supreme Court site.)
[/quote]

The appellate decision or the supreme order sending it back to the appellate?

AB
[/quote]

The Supreme Order. (Sounds so 1984'ish) :-)
[/quote]

Google up the Illinois Court site.  Go to the Illinois Courts twitter account.  Scroll down to the Sept 29, 2010 "Leave to Appeal Dispositions".  Scroll through that document down to No. 109314.  (Hint, there are two cases with parties named "Wilson".  Make sure you get the right number.  That's all there is, not much to read.

AB
[/quote]

Thanks for the information! You're right, no more to read. Just thought they wouldn't decide anything with so few words. :-)>

[Talonap]

Does anyone know when the Appelate court will be reconsidering their decision?

[Tvandermyde]

give it 30 - 60 days after they notice the parties. I hear Cook County in running real slow these days so it could be 90 days on briefs.

[Talonap]

Thanks Todd. I'll be watching the next few months. Sure would be nice to be able to get a 9mm carbine here. :-)> Also, thanks for all the good work you do for our cause!

[Sigma]

junglebob, on 24 September 2010 - 11:45 AM, said:

SFC Stu, on 24 September 2010 - 05:22 AM, said:

Nomad, on 24 September 2010 - 02:31 AM, said:

If the rest of the state doesn't have such a ban, what is so special about Crook County? It's time that tyranny becomes a victim of oppression, not the people.

Crook County *thinks* they are special and do not have to follow the US Constitution. Most cities in Illinois have home rule. Home rule may be OK for deciding who is the dog catcher or what company collects the garbage. Firearms laws need to be the same statewide!

Actually I think there are a lot more cities who don't have home rule.  Though approximately 70% of the people live in home rule communities only about 167 cities are home rule.  I agree firearms laws need to be the same statewide, better yet weapons laws, then we wouldn't have the silliness like Loves Park's ordinance banning knives over 1 1/2" long. Also there wouldn't be the possibility of 167 different firearm transportation ordinances.

wish i could get a list of which cities are home rule

[Lou]

Google is your friend.  Here is a list of the 201 HR entities:

HR entities

[Yas]

Remember just because they are Home Rule,   may not be such a great thing.   It also depends on if any firearms restrictions were passed by each particular home rule municipality.

I'd bet Orland Park may be a example.  They restricted Gunshops heavily several years back to the extent that the Dicks moved all their inventory out of the store. Yet the next nearest Dicks (in the same mall as the ("Lane Bryant murders")   Tinley Park Il  Sells arms and ammunition.  Just the next town over from Orland.

[Tvandermyde]

the appelate court got the order on remand. I understand that they have set a briefing deadline for 12-1. all briefs are due.

So we'll see how fast this moves along.....

[kurt555gs]

Lou, on 10 October 2010 - 06:22 AM, said:

Google is your friend. Here is a list of the 201 HR entities:

HR entities

Reading this, preemption in any RTC law seems to be a must. Can you imagine the confusion?

[Sigma]

so how do you guys think this will go

[Tvandermyde]

my guess is Quinn will once again rule against us.

And we will tee it up for the L Supreme court.

[mstrat]

Tvandermyde, on 20 November 2010 - 09:48 AM, said:

my guess is Quinn will once again rule against us.

And we will tee it up for the L Supreme court.

Forgive my ignorance, but if the court says throw out the ban, how can Quinn defy it?

[Tvandermyde]

beleive it or not their is an appealte judge Pat Quinn on the case, not the Governor. That was my referance.

he sat on the orginal panel.

[Druid]

Howard Roark, on 30 September 2010 - 07:00 PM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 30 September 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

Sigma, on 29 September 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:

anoterh result warranted? What was the original result.

Wilson lost.  So another result would be Wilson wins.

Tom Hanks as Todd Stroger.  "I'm sorry Wilson !!!"

LOL  I highly doubt Todd is sorry.

Just noticed this new legal discussion forum; good stuff.

It seems to me that the appellate court is planning to punt this case as quickly as possible, and we will be back to the higher court soon (<1 year?).

[Druid]

I believe the ISRA lawyers are 100% correct in the legal arguments in this case, but I have little to no hope for a positive ruling in the appellate court. In the oral arguments I have attended downtown, the attitude from the bench left the impression that they thought we were crazy. I remember the court reporter rolling her eyes and making a face while the ISRA lawyers argued. As if they were arguing for something insane like granting terrorist child molesters guaranteed access to kids.

I would like to be optimistic, but the realist in me thinks this will eventually have to go federal for a fair trial. Let's hope not though! This case is going over four years at this point. We need luck in getting better, unbiased judges.

[Federal Farmer]

Druid, on 24 November 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

I believe the ISRA lawyers are 100% correct in the legal arguments in this case, but I have little to no hope for a positive ruling in the appellate court. In the oral arguments I have attended downtown, the attitude from the bench left the impression that they thought we were crazy. I remember the court reporter rolling her eyes and making a face while the ISRA lawyers argued. As if they were arguing for something insane like granting terrorist child molesters guaranteed access to kids.

I would like to be optimistic, but the realist in me thinks this will eventually have to go federal for a fair trial. Let's hope not though! This case is going over four years at this point. We need luck in getting better, unbiased judges.

Thanks for the update!

[Tvandermyde]

I think we'll get a bad ruling from the appealte court. But I also hear NRA is aiding inthe case and Hallbrook has been talkiing with ISRA.

We are getting to the point where we may have more litigation in Illinois than any other state.

[Druid]

I personally just drove and helped deliver our brief for this case downtown. The ISRA Lawyers, particularly Vic Quilici, and with help from Halbrook, worked very hard and did an incredible job. I even got to help out with providing technical support.

The counties' brief is also due today.

Keep your fingers crossed!  

[Federal Farmer]

Druid, on 01 December 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

I personally just drove and helped deliver our brief for this case downtown. The ISRA Lawyers, particularly Vic Quilici, and with help from Halbrook, worked very hard and did an incredible job. I even got to help out with providing technical support.

The counties' brief is also due today.

Keep your fingers crossed!  

Where can we get copies of those briefs?

[GarandFan]

Hang in there, Druid.  Good lord the wheels turn slowly, don't they?  Hang in there, and keep up the good work.

[Druid]

Federal Farmer, on 01 December 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

Where can we get copies of those briefs?

Only the appellate decisions are published, like their last on Wilson vs Cook County @ http://legal.iml.org...3/1-08-1202.pdf

The briefs could be obtained from http://westlaw.com, but that's a paid subscription site.

Message me if you are interested in a copy.

[mauserme]

Druid, on 01 December 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 01 December 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

Where can we get copies of those briefs?

Only the appellate decisions are published, like their last on Wilson vs Cook County @ http://legal.iml.org...3/1-08-1202.pdf

The briefs could be obtained from http://westlaw.com, but that's a paid subscription site.

Message me if you are interested in a copy.

Can you attach a pdf for public consumption?

[Druid]

mauserme, on 01 December 2010 - 04:14 PM, said:

Druid, on 01 December 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 01 December 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

Where can we get copies of those briefs?

Only the appellate decisions are published, like their last on Wilson vs Cook County @ http://legal.iml.org...3/1-08-1202.pdf

The briefs could be obtained from http://westlaw.com, but that's a paid subscription site.

Message me if you are interested in a copy.

Can you attach a pdf for public consumption?

I don't have a PDF version, but I'll probably post it somewhere in a day or two, after the county's lawyers get theirs in the mail. I hope to get and post a copy of the county's brief as well.

[GarandFan]

Druid, on 01 December 2010 - 05:12 PM, said:

... I'll probably post it somewhere in a day or two, after the county's lawyers get theirs in the mail. I hope to get and post a copy of the county's brief as well.

That would be great, Sir.

[Tvandermyde]

druid --

if you get me a copy, I can PDF it and post it.

[Howard Roark]

pdf attached

Attached Files

•  Wilson_Brief_Supp_Appeal.pdf   228.25K   166 downloads

[mstrat]

I purposefully tried to read this from an anti point of view (continually framing their arguments and objections in my head as I read)....
And I must say this brief makes some extremely strong arguments using Heller and McDonald.  For those that haven't read it: I'm not talking about hand-waving, anecdotes, or opinion.  I'm referring to specific statements in those previous rulings that clearly show the SCOTUS have put the smack-down on firearms laws that are not 100% necessary.

This is the first I'm really looking into this case, so can anyone tell me if the county has ever been able to make credible claims that pistol grips (as one example) make the firearm more dangerous to the public, therefore requiring a ban?  Or because this case was lost prior to Heller and McDonald, did the county not even need to make such an argument since they knew they'd win in IL courts?

If the latter (they can't argue pistol grips, for example, pass "strict scrutiny"), do you think it's possible we will see this assault weapons ban thrown out, or modified?

Even if we can get the ban modified to allow AR, AK, etc style semi-auto rifles.. that would be a major victory (and something I personally would love, since I've been eyeing a few .22s that I can't currently own).

[mstrat]

By the way, does anybody know where this "20 times as likely" is from?

Quote

The prefatory clauses to the ordinance here made negative comments about firearms in general and made two allegations about “assault weapons.” Wilson, 394 Ill.App.3d at 535-36. First, it claims that “assault weapons are 20 times more likely to be used in the commission of a crime than other kinds of weapons,” id. at 535, but the U.S. Department of Justice study found that “AWs [assault weapons] were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the [federal] ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%.”7

I'm not very fluent in legalese, but I assume that refers to something in the original Wilson case... was it the judge's ruling? Or the county's argument in that case?

Just curious because that's a HUGE difference. At a glance "8" vs "20" seems similar - but those are different scales.  Let's translate those both into percent of total gun crimes.

DOJ says: assault weapons used in 2% to 8% of gun crimes.
Cook county says: assault weapons are 20 times more likely to be used in a crime, which means for every 1 non-assault weapon used, there are 20 assault weapons used.... or 95.24% of gun crimes

Somebody's lying, and I doubt it's the DOJ study.