442 replies to this topic

[Federal Farmer]

The IL Supreme Court is deliberating.

[Tvandermyde]

Orals were in January about the 18th I think.

so normally, it takes about 90 days after that to get a decision. But aguilar has yet to be argued. Briefs were due today from Cook County.

We will see if they ask for another extension. Then there will be a reply and orals. Question is will they hold up Wilson to rule on Aguilar, or just doe them seperate. the 2A issue is teed up front at center in Aguilar, so they could use that for the 2A then base Wilson on that.

but it is all speculation

[Pinto]

Tvandermyde, on 30 March 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Orals were in January about the 18th I think.

so normally, it takes about 90 days after that to get a decision. But aguilar has yet to be argued. Briefs were due today from Cook County.

We will see if they ask for another extension. Then there will be a reply and orals. Question is will they hold up Wilson to rule on Aguilar, or just doe them seperate. the 2A issue is teed up front at center in Aguilar, so they could use that for the 2A then base Wilson on that.

but it is all speculation

I never said I know nothing of court procedures. And I did go back and re-read most of the comments above, so I presume none of you are lawyers, with perhaps the exception of nakPPI. Correct? I was hoping someone with inside knowledge of this particular case might respond, but I guess it's too early for that.

[Pinto]

BudMan5, on 30 March 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Pinto, on 30 March 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Hello fellas. Any of you have any idea what's going on with this case? Timeline perhaps?

This is my first post and, to be honest, I'm mainly interested in this issue, as it affects me greatly. So any advice, by someone who's not simply guessing, would be most appreciated.

In a way it affects all of us. The folks involved will post, usually within minutes of it actually happening, any changes

Welcome aboard and don't hesitate to join in the discussions.

Thanks Budman5. Didn't mean to ignore your welcome. I'm not much of a joiner, and don't really have anything that anyone would care to hear anyway, so, like I said, I'm really just interested in the court's decision in Wilson.

BTW... if you know, are any of the briefs online? Some of the stuff said above (preemption, Wildlife Code, etc.) simply can't be right, but I'd like to see for myself. After all, as I'm sure everyone has figured out by now, when it comes to protecting our rights, we're on our own. No one else, no organization, is going to do it for us. So I'd like to see.

Thanks again for the welcome!

-- Pinto

[Tvandermyde]

We are being told the Court will release Wilson Thursday morning.

[Federal Farmer]

Tvandermyde, on 02 April 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

We are being told the Court will release Wilson Thursday morning.

OMG, fingers and toes crossed 'til then...

[abolt243]

Tvandermyde, on 02 April 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

We are being told the Court will release Wilson Thursday morning.

This is the Cook County AWB case that is at the Illinois Supreme Court level, correct??  The District court and the appelate court both found against us, correct??

Hoping for the best.  I'm tired of reading of all these victories spread all over the country and all we got is Moore and Shepard!!

AB

[Bud]

Time to bring this back out to the front page in anticipation of the pending IL Supreme Court's decision

[Vaden]

If the semi auto ban get lifted so help me Eugene Stoner i'm going to order an M4style carbine that very day and mow the lawn with THAT strapped to my thigh.

[SFC Stu]

Tvandermyde, on 02 April 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

We are being told the Court will release Wilson Thursday morning.

Thank you! Also thanks for all your hard work!

[TFC]

They're mainly liberal, Machine judges, guys. If you believe in miracles, pray for one...

[Joeyl]

If won what effect would that have on Acevedo's proposed assault weapon bill(or similiar future legislatio)?

Edited by Joeyl, 03 April 2012 - 05:30 AM.

[Davey]

After rewatching the oral arguments above I feel pretty good about this one.

[sctman800]

TFC, on 02 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

They're mainly liberal, Machine judges, guys. If you believe in miracles, pray for one...

Remember IIRC that is the court that ruled on "People v Diggens" that gave us console carry.   Jim.

[bob]

It is a tough call. There is no RTKBA that the state of IL recognizes at present other than handgun in the home.

Despite the pedigree of some of the justices, the history of the court is not too bad at making fair decisions. But, I just don't know what line of legal reasoning they would be able to use to come up with a decision we would like based solely on IL law. They would have to put some of the recent 2A stuff into the mix and I don't know if they are quite ready for that.

[mstrat]

If they rule against us, I'd be very curious to see their response to the part of the Heller decision that clearly says the government can't outlaw an entire class of firearms in common use.

I dare you to try to find a centerfire semi-automatic rifle that is legal in Cook county.  Seriously... it's not easy. (a ruger mini 14 with a 10 round magazine is the only common one I've found).

[oneshot]

TFC, on 02 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

They're mainly liberal, Machine judges, guys. If you believe in miracles, pray for one...

If there were such a thing as miracles, Quinn would show up to session with a Kimber strapped to his hip proclaiming Honorary Bring Your Favorite Gun to Work Day, "I've seen the light!"

[oneshot]

mstrat, on 03 April 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

If they rule against us, I'd be very curious to see their response to the part of the Heller decision that clearly says the government can't outlaw an entire class of firearms in common use.

I dare you to try to find a centerfire semi-automatic rifle that is legal in Cook county.  Seriously... it's not easy. (a ruger mini 14 with a 10 round magazine is the only common one I've found).

With a removable magazine?  That's better than California!

[Federal Farmer]

bob, on 03 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

It is a tough call. There is no RTKBA that the state of IL recognizes at present other than handgun in the home.

Despite the pedigree of some of the justices, the history of the court is not too bad at making fair decisions. But, I just don't know what line of legal reasoning they would be able to use to come up with a decision we would like based solely on IL law. They would have to put some of the recent 2A stuff into the mix and I don't know if they are quite ready for that.

After McDonald they remanded this back down for consideration in light of Heller/McDonald, so they'll at least consider that.

[Tvandermyde]

Joeyl, on 02 April 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

<BR>If won what effect would that have on Acevedo's proposed assault weapon bill(or similiar future legislatio)?<BR>

<BR><BR><BR>


It depends on the ruling.

As I see it, they have 4 choices.

1. rule against us on the 2A issue. -- I doubt this from the questions. not a single judge really stood up to support or justify the ban.


2. Remand on the 2-615 motion. Justice Theis was all over this at least 4 times. She wants to punt and get it out of their laps. 25% possibility

3. Rule for us on 2A grounds -- 40% possibility. the Chief judge asked the question of wasn't a Glock at the heart of Heller? and would that gun be legal under the Cook Ordinance? the qanswers were Yes and NO. So the unasked question, was how could the gun that Heller said was legal to own be outlawed by a Cook Ordinance? The short answer is you can't.

4. Wildlife Code Preemption -- 60% I was responsible for this line of thinking and the amici brief on it. the idea is all of these guns are allowed for huntng under the wildlife code and the code says that locals can not regulate the taking of game. They can't regulate bag limits or season dates or ammo or guns then in my opinion. The first question out of thebox was fom a Chicago Judge Freeman asking Hallbrook if the issue wasn't preempted by the WC? Justice Karmier (sp?) came back to it mid argeuments . I think this is the win and punt for the Court.

I think we have at least two of the repubs, and I'm betting we have all three. I also think we have the Chief Judge. thats 4 for a majority. so the question is did they go back and vote to go 2A as Thomas suggested, or did they go back and look over the top of their glasses and say we can go this route or we can go this route and Freeman says they go Wildlife Code, the ban is preempted by state law and it comes out 6-1.

I have been waiting to see if Aguilar was going to hold it up, but that question has now been answered. The remaining questions are do they deal with Kalidimos? they need to. But we don't know.

Now as to what this does for Acevedo's bill:

If they rule on Wildlife Code, nothing. If they rule 2A in our favor, it's dead, depending on how borad the ruling is. But that may not stop them from pushing the bill, but it will give us a couple more votes against it and seals it's fate.

[JR1987]

Tagges to see the resulta. I hope it's done away with

[Skorpius]

Hoping for the best, but living in Chicago, it won't mean **** for us.  

[Federal Farmer]

Skorpius, on 03 April 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Hoping for the best, but living in Chicago, it won't mean **** for us.  

Sure it will.  I plan to submit registrations for my 2 AR-15s and my Mossberg 930SPX and probably a couple AKs while I'm at it.

ETA:
Actually I might have a problem with one of the AR's and the 930 because I did not challenge the denial back when I tried to register them just to see what would happen.  I registered them along with my 4 SKS rifles that I ultimately did win on.

[Tvandermyde]

skorpius -- if we win it will mean a lot for Chicago.

just watch for the little mushroom cloud. . .

[Bimmer]

If we win I'm looking forward to building an AR.

[Skorpius]

I hope so, Todd.

Fed, the fact that you would still have to register (and permit) is the problem (unless Chicago tries to claim home rule on continuing the ban). That likely is not going away without a few more wins outside of the state.

[Federal Farmer]

Skorpius, on 03 April 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

I hope so, Todd.

Fed, the fact that you would still have to register (and permit) is the problem (unless Chicago tries to claim home rule on continuing the ban). That likely is not going away without a few more wins outside of the state.

Registration is a fight for another day.  Just being able to register them will be a huge victory for me.  Currently I have to pay for storage and keep them inconveniently located.

[Skorpius]

Good on that, then. I'm thinking I may do just that as far as regular capacity Glock 17 mags are concerned just in case the election goes bad. Although, if we win, the option of moving out of Chicago, but staying in Cook County near to the city would be appealing.

[Joeyl]

Todd thanks for the detailed answer.
Off topic--F.F. is the "forever unregisterable" b.s. being addressed in any of the lawsuits.

Edited by Joeyl, 03 April 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Druid]

It's hard to believe that this case's decision at the IL Supreme Court has finally come. It began sometime in 2007 and the first version had no 2nd Amendment argument at all. It's amazing to think about all the hard work has gone into this case by so many people over the last 5 years. I'll be keeping some fingers crossed this week. I hope that the court has the guts to rule in our favor instead of punting. Even with a victory, I’m sure the battle is long from over in the courts on this topic.