Jump to content


Photo

Wilson decision -- remand on 2-615 motion


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
90 replies to this topic

#1 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,770 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:10 AM

21 pages ling affirmed in part, on the equal protection and due pro process

Remand on the 2-615 issue

More to follow looks like i owe some people a beer

Unanimous decision
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#2 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:14 AM

21 pages ling affirmed in part, on the equal protection and due pro process

Remand on the 2-615 issue

More to follow looks like i owe some people a beer

Unanimous decision



this sucks where to now?
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#3 xbaltzx

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 08

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:18 AM

Decision

#4 scough

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 772 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

Tough past week so far with Shepard and now Wilson...

#5 Danielm60660

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM

So it's a punt? Is this what we're to gather?

#6 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,598 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:24 AM

I don't get it. How does the IL SC say they can't make the decision and boot it back to a lower court? That's like my unit commander saying he can't make the decision and forcing me to make it instead. Shouldn't it move up, not down, the chain of command?

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread


#7 Druid

    Matt Wilson

  • Members
  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:29 AM

The court basically said that the lower court erred and needs to look at it again on the remanded counts.

#8 Jason4567

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 12

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:43 AM

Wow, I really had my hopes up on this. How much of this "decision" has to do with the fact it is an election year?

IS YOUR RIFLE A GRENADE LAUNCHER? YES NO

From the Chicago Firearm Registration form

#9 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,345 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:44 AM

these judges need to be voted out.

#10 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,334 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:46 AM

Going to GAT Guns to let out some steam and peruse their rifle racks. Maybe a Mosin will cheer me up.

Edited by Davey, 05 April 2012 - 08:46 AM.


#11 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,276 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:49 AM

There were findings of fact required at the trial court level that were not considered. Appellate and Supreme Courts only can consider facts from the trial. In order to enter new facts, it must go back to trial court. That's how our legal system works.

McDonald bypassed most of the trial phase by a motion from Gura to narrow the question. Therefore, no facts were required only a decision.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#12 boomersand

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:50 AM

I got my hopes up with all this ar-15 looking on gunbroker...now back to watching the Masters.

#13 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,276 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:55 AM

The court basically said that the lower court erred and needs to look at it again on the remanded counts.


"...plaintiffs allege they are of ordinary intelligence..."

I wouldn't take that lying down! lol

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#14 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:56 AM

It's Illinois, what do you expect?

Justice Burke is married to Chicago Alderman Burke (who enjoys 24 hour Chicago Police protection) and Justice Theis lives across the street from Mayor Emmanuel and her adult son was part of Mayuor Emmanuel's election staff.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#15 Sigma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,700 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:41 AM

so will they continue enforcing this ordinance meanwhile it is being remanded
Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Guns kill people just like beds get girls pregnant.

#16 JackTripper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 10

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:47 AM

so will they continue enforcing this ordinance meanwhile it is being remanded


It remains the law of the land.
Come and knock on my door. I'll be waiting for you.

#17 vactor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 08

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:48 AM

i hate living here so much i can hardly stand it. but i like it just a TINY SMIDGE more than the prospect of taking another bar exam elsewhere. i hate this state and the politicians and most of the undereducated voting idiots in chicago. i wish i could give this place the finger, but i can't :Crying. =-(:( FU illinois!!!FU Chicago. and FU machine democrats!!!!
Forty Two

#18 Druid

    Matt Wilson

  • Members
  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:54 AM

"...plaintiffs allege they are of ordinary intelligence..."

I wouldn't take that lying down! lol


LOL, hope they don't require a test to prove that.

#19 NakPPI

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:03 AM

21 pages ling affirmed in part, on the equal protection and due pro process

Remand on the 2-615 issue

More to follow looks like i owe some people a beer

Unanimous decision


I'll take the Heineken, you can keep the ammo. I work downtown now. :Crying. =-(:

Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.

#20 wazzle

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,737 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:24 AM

What is this?


The Southern

Illinois top court allows suit vs. assault weapon ban



SPRINGFIELD — Gun rights advocates scored a victory Thursday when the Illinois Supreme Court decided to allow a challenge to Cook County's assault weapons ban to proceed.

The court ruled that lower courts were wrong to throw out the challenge. The Supreme Court said it wants the trial court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns.

Cook County banned the sale or possession of assault weapons in 1993. The ordinance included details of what constituted an assault weapon and examples of banned guns, but it was aimed at "high-capacity, rapid-fire" rifles and pistols. The law was expanded in 2006 to ban large ammunition magazines.

The ban was challenged by three Cook County residents who said they had perfectly valid reasons to own the prohibited weapons, from hunting to target shooting to personal protection. They argued that the law was too vague and too broad, with little connection to the goal of increasing public safety.

A trial court rejected their challenge, as did the state appeals court.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned handguns. It held that the 2nd Amendment establishes a fundamental right to possess a handgun for self-defense. The Illinois appeals court took another look at the case in light of the new Supreme Court ruling but still found the Cook County ban was constitutional.

Edited by wazzle, 05 April 2012 - 10:24 AM.


#21 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:47 AM

What is this?


The Southern

Illinois top court allows suit vs. assault weapon ban



SPRINGFIELD Gun rights advocates scored a victory Thursday when the Illinois Supreme Court decided to allow a challenge to Cook County's assault weapons ban to proceed.

The court ruled that lower courts were wrong to throw out the challenge. The Supreme Court said it wants the trial court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns.

Cook County banned the sale or possession of assault weapons in 1993. The ordinance included details of what constituted an assault weapon and examples of banned guns, but it was aimed at "high-capacity, rapid-fire" rifles and pistols. The law was expanded in 2006 to ban large ammunition magazines.

The ban was challenged by three Cook County residents who said they had perfectly valid reasons to own the prohibited weapons, from hunting to target shooting to personal protection. They argued that the law was too vague and too broad, with little connection to the goal of increasing public safety.

A trial court rejected their challenge, as did the state appeals court.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned handguns. It held that the 2nd Amendment establishes a fundamental right to possess a handgun for self-defense. The Illinois appeals court took another look at the case in light of the new Supreme Court ruling but still found the Cook County ban was constitutional.



it's exactly what it says. The IL Supreame court ruled that it should be allowed to go to trial. It's not a victory, that will show imediate results, but a victory none the less. So it go back down to be tried.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#22 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 11,562 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:51 AM

What is this?


The Southern

Illinois top court allows suit vs. assault weapon ban

A victory for us because now the lawsuit can proceed. A victory for the other side would have been if the Supreme Court had let the dismissal of the case by the lower courts stand.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#23 stm

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 10:53 AM

I read the decision. There was no mention at all of the Wildlife Code preemption. Did they dismiss that without mention because it wasn't brought up in the original complaint?

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#24 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,334 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:28 AM


What is this?


The Southern

Illinois top court allows suit vs. assault weapon ban

A victory for us because now the lawsuit can proceed. A victory for the other side would have been if the Supreme Court had let the dismissal of the case by the lower courts stand.


Is this what going to state supreme court was all about?

Side note...just got back from buying a new gun, Ruger 10/22. It'll cheer me up for now.

#25 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,302 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:50 AM

I was exepcting more, and was led to believe there might be more from the Supreme, but had I done my homework, I'd have known that we only had two choices from the State Supreme court. Uphold the dismissals of the lower courts, or be remanded back to the lowest court, hear testimony and try the case.

We couldn't expect the Supreme to rule the AWB unconstitutional, there had been very little if any testimony and or arguments made for or against that issue. All the Cook County circuit court did was say that there wasn't enough evidence to even hold a trial, so they dismissed the whole thing. The appellate court said "yep, the circuit was right". Now the Supreme comes along and says hey dummies, maybe on some counts it can be dismissed, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, the plaintiff's have got some valid points. You'd better take this case back to the beginning and listen to what they have to say and give it a fair trial.

So, as Valinda says, the motions to dismiss by the defendants (Cook County) have been pushed aside, and the lower court has been told to hear the case and make a decision. From that aspect, it's a win for us. But it just takes so damned much time!

Tim
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#26 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

I was exepcting more, and was led to believe there might be more from the Supreme, but had I done my homework, I'd have known that we only had two choices from the State Supreme court. Uphold the dismissals of the lower courts, or be remanded back to the lowest court, hear testimony and try the case.

We couldn't expect the Supreme to rule the AWB unconstitutional, there had been very little if any testimony and or arguments made for or against that issue. All the Cook County circuit court did was say that there wasn't enough evidence to even hold a trial, so they dismissed the whole thing. The appellate court said "yep, the circuit was right". Now the Supreme comes along and says hey dummies, maybe on some counts it can be dismissed, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, the plaintiff's have got some valid points. You'd better take this case back to the beginning and listen to what they have to say and give it a fair trial.

So, as Valinda says, the motions to dismiss by the defendants (Cook County) have been pushed aside, and the lower court has been told to hear the case and make a decision. From that aspect, it's a win for us. But it just takes so damned much time!

Tim


I completly agree, I think that was the only 2 viable options, and we had our hopes up for nothing in looking for something more . Nothing was ever tried, so they cant say the ruling was good or bad since there was no ruling. All they could say was if the dismissal was just or unjust and they ruled based on that.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


Comment on this thread for a chance to win a Glock and a pizza http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=51095

#27 Druid

    Matt Wilson

  • Members
  • 1,026 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 05

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:36 PM

I spoke for a while earlier today with ISRA Lead Council Victor Quilici.

Here's a basic summary of what I can share.

Re. Due Process and Equal Protection:
Disappointing that they ruled against us on these, even though attorney Ed Ronkowski in our opinion did an excellent job arguing for them.

Re. 2nd Amendment argument:
Vic had fought to ensure that the Court’s error in granting the 2-615 motion would be argued before the Supreme Court. When the legal team
practiced, and held moot court, some attorneys present felt that the argument regarding the 2-615 motion was not that important, but Vic insisted it would be. Good thing he was right and made sure that argument was made before the State Supreme Court.

#28 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,073 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

I spoke for a while earlier today with ISRA Lead Council Victor Quilici.

Here's a basic summary of what I can share.

Re. Due Process and Equal Protection:
Disappointing that they ruled against us on these, even though attorney Ed Ronkowski in our opinion did an excellent job arguing for them.

Re. 2nd Amendment argument:
Vic had fought to include the 2-615 Motion to Dismiss in the ISRA lawsuit. When he and his legal team practiced and held moot-court, some present had argued against including the 2-615, saying that the court would never go for it. Good thing he was right and made sure that was part of the case.


The due process and equal protection claims are ultimately a federal claim and can be further litigated in the federal courts.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#29 miztic

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:25 PM

I was exepcting more, and was led to believe there might be more from the Supreme, but had I done my homework, I'd have known that we only had two choices from the State Supreme court. Uphold the dismissals of the lower courts, or be remanded back to the lowest court, hear testimony and try the case.

We couldn't expect the Supreme to rule the AWB unconstitutional, there had been very little if any testimony and or arguments made for or against that issue. All the Cook County circuit court did was say that there wasn't enough evidence to even hold a trial, so they dismissed the whole thing. The appellate court said "yep, the circuit was right". Now the Supreme comes along and says hey dummies, maybe on some counts it can be dismissed, but on the issue of the Second Amendment, the plaintiff's have got some valid points. You'd better take this case back to the beginning and listen to what they have to say and give it a fair trial.

So, as Valinda says, the motions to dismiss by the defendants (Cook County) have been pushed aside, and the lower court has been told to hear the case and make a decision. From that aspect, it's a win for us. But it just takes so damned much time!

Tim


I have a dumb question, if the lower courts didn't think it was even neccesary to listen to the arguments and thought Cook co. was right all along, how can we expect them to fairly hear all the evidence if they've already decided we're wrong?

IC / SAF / ISRA / NRA / GRAA Member
Anywhere you are able to carry a pen you should be able to carry a sidearm.

They hate guns so much, they are willing to risk the lives of large crowds and children to feel better with their 'gun free' zones.


#30 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 02:39 PM

]

I have a dumb question, if the lower courts didn't think it was even neccesary to listen to the arguments and thought Cook co. was right all along, how can we expect them to fairly hear all the evidence if they've already decided we're wrong?


No such thing as a dumb question.

What the IL SC said was youy failed to take into consideration all of the facts and this time you have to do it. The difference is that they have now been notified that their omission has been noted and if they don't get it right this time, a higher court will.

This, as it turns out, is a win for us, it is just taking the long road to get to it unstead of the short path.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW