69 replies to this topic

[mstrat]

http://capitolfax.co...l-court-ruling/

Quote

Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.
The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.
But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.
“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”

[C0untZer0]

Right...

I think we've been through that already with a few issues.

The way our country is set up, the constitution applies to all states and govermental bodies.  We've been through this before with segregation, Jim Crow laws and similar things.

But anyway, the Illinois Supreme Court is not going to oppose the CA7 - Castiglione is out of touch.  His comments weren't even coordinated with IL AG - IMO, he's just out there on his own saying crazy things.

[mstrat]

C0untZer0, on 21 February 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Castiglione is out of touch.  His comments weren't even coordinated with IL AG - IMO, he's just out there on his own saying crazy things.

After doing some more reading, it sounds like this might be precisely what's going on.

[CGT]

I agree.  They may pass const. Carry and not do anything and have chicago ban all guns or limit to the fullest extent possible by a city or county law or ordinance.  

Clinton

[Bitter]

Any first year law student can tell you that federal courts can strike down state laws.  Where do they did up these flunkies? Does he also think Roe v. Wade is null and void?

[Jeffrey]

Crook county can't let go of the idea, keep lying and eventually they will believe it.  They are also not afraid to go to court only to lose and have to pay people like the NRA, with tax payers money, as has been proven a few times now.

[Stevepk]

How about a massive armed paraded downtown Chicago on the 9th of June.

[moon]

Stevepk, on 21 February 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

How about a massive armed paraded downtown Chicago on the 9th of June.

lol...Sounds like an interesting thought.

[Joebie]

AK-15.  lulz

[JPT]

I was half way listening to this while at work. When this guy started talking I started listening closely, then I started laughing.

[VVelox]

Stevepk, on 21 February 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

How about a massive armed paraded downtown Chicago on the 9th of June.

This would be very interesting to see. Although being a local and having to live here, the idea of participating slightly unnerves me when it comes to what the potential blow back may be.

To pull it off, I think we would really need a notably large crowd involved in it to possibly avoid any issues with people being hassled.

[vess1]

I didn't catch the whole video feed from that hearing a couple days ago but I did catch the part where that guy was talking.  Several House reps had questions for him after his comments.   They actually got on him pretty good and all but implied that he was a fool for thinking these things.   One called his thinking "dangerous" and recommended that he go back and discuss the issue with other state's attorneys to be sure they're all in agreement.  

  The Cook Co. states attorney continued to defy them and say that Chicago will continue to prosecute UUW after June 9th because we're waiting to hear from the IL supreme court concerning some other case to settle this.  
   Phelps grilled him last and asked him if he truly believes there will not be Constitutional carry in IL after June 9th.   Phelps also asked him a couple times if he would go on the record as saying that this situation will not happen and if Cook Co. was going to be willing to risk the lawsuits that would come as a result of their actions.   He did not agree but would not commit.   Then he recommended that if they were going to pass something that it would be in our best interest for them to pass a may issue bill, similar to NY and CA.  
   He also went on to say that he believed every Cook Co. resident should have to go through Gary McCarthy and be approved to get a permit.   I'm sure Gary would get right on top of that pile of 75k people or more.

[C0untZer0]

Castiglione is the perfect example of how patronage jobs, cronyism and nepotism destroy government.  He holds a position as policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, but as someone else has pointed out - a first year law student has a better understanding of the law than Castiglione.

Being inept and incompetent is bad enough but making statements to law makers that are erroneous and misleading is even worse.

You wonder how Chicago keeps getting itself into these situations where it loses one lawsuit after another?

Well - it's because people like Castiglione infest Chicago and Cook County government at all levels.

[NakPPI]

Guys, he is right in terms of court precedent, Moore is only persuasive as to State courts. However, the state is a party to the Complaint and will be enjoined from enforcement. That's the step in his legal reasoning that he neglected. Again, he's engaging in serious legal mental masturbation if he thinks that Cook County States attorney can still enforce UUW after the State was enjoined from enforcement...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[NakPPI]

'nuff said.


Nicolas Paul Castiglione

Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: November 10, 2011

Registered Business Address:

Cook County State's Attorney's Office 28 North Clark Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602-2826


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[SILmama]

Every grade and high school student who graduates in Illinois must pass a Constitution test.  Guess he didn't graduate.

[TyGuy]

No carry bill passes, no local ordinances are in place come June 9th.  June 10th a group of 10 shows up downtown Chicago openly carrying AR-15s.  They are promptly arrested.  Fast forward 5 years, all 10 win multi-million dollar settlements from the city, police departments, SA, etc... for violating their civil rights.

[illinisnare]

If you would like to see more of Mr. Castiglione, he argued on behalf of Cook County on the Wilson v Cook County case at the IL Supreme Court.  I think he's hillarious.  His arguments start around the 21 minute mark.

[illinisnare]

Paul's brother or father, Frank Castiglione is an Associate Judge in Cook County Circuit Court.

[snooter]

for a moment i thought that was grandpa on the munsters

protection of the public at large..now isnt that what CCW is hopefully to accomplish..the guys logic is asnine

Edited by snooter, 21 February 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[DjachDjach]

vess1, on 21 February 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

... He also went on to say that he believed every Cook Co. resident should have to go through Gary McCarthy and be approved to get a permit.   I'm sure Gary would get right on top of that pile of 75k people or more.

Yeah, right... Garry McCarthy!  The same IDIOT who stated that "Second Amendment supporters are guilty of corruption...!"  But yet, there's NO "corruption" whatsoever in Chicago politics! Riiiiight...!

[oneshot]

NakPPI, on 21 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Guys, he is right in terms of court precedent, Moore is only persuasive as to State courts. However, the state is a party to the Complaint and will be enjoined from enforcement. That's the step in his legal reasoning that he neglected. Again, he's engaging in serious legal mental masturbation if he thinks that Cook County States attorney can still enforce UUW after the State was enjoined from enforcement...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

That's the track of thinking I kept going down, but he's trying to persuade the state legislature that they don't have to do anything, that the federal ruling is not binding on state law and thus they should act as if nothing happened.  One comment I saw elsewhere was that the LEO's making arrests on UUW after it drops dead would lose their Qualified Immunity, which protects them from personally from liability in the course of their duties from violating a persons civil rights.

[Hooch]

"If we open our mouths, every politician in cook county would be on a rock pile".........Al Capone
"That SOB is right".................Mayor of Chicago

[abolt243]

NakPPI, on 21 February 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

'nuff said.


Nicolas Paul Castiglione

Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: November 10, 2011

Registered Business Address:

Cook County State's Attorney's Office 28 North Clark Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602-2826


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

So, Mr. Castiglione has exactly 1 year and 3 months of experience?  Or he's only been able to plead before the Supreme Court for that time frame?  He certainly looks like he's been out of law school for a while, unless this is a second or third career.  At any rate, he argued Wilson two months after the date you quote in your post.

[NakPPI]

abolt243, on 21 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

NakPPI, on 21 February 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

'nuff said.


Nicolas Paul Castiglione

Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: November 10, 2011

Registered Business Address:

Cook County State's Attorney's Office 28 North Clark Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60602-2826


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

So, Mr. Castiglione has exactly 1 year and 3 months of experience?  Or he's only been able to plead before the Supreme Court for that time frame?  He certainly looks like he's been out of law school for a while, unless this is a second or third career.  At any rate, he argued Wilson two months after the date you quote in your post.

Yes, he was admitted to practice law on that date. He has been an attorney since 11/10/11...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[TomKoz]

NakPPI, on 21 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

. , ".... he's engaging in serious legal mental masturbation ..."

THAT paints a sad picture !!

Edited by TomKoz, 21 February 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[NakPPI]

TomKoz, on 21 February 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

NakPPI, on 21 February 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

. , ".... he's engaging in serious legal mental masturbation ..."

THAT paints a sad picture !!

I can't help myself, but that is what this is. He's spinning around legal arguments in his head but not "completing" the thought.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[kevinmcc]

Chicago and Crook County are taking the stance that the 7th's decision is only an advisory and has no effect on law.

They beleive that they can do as they please even after the 180 days are up, that means making thier own laws to prohibit carry.

Chicago and Crook County apparently is more than happy to waste tax dollars on litigation.

[oneshot]

kevinmcc, on 21 February 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

Chicago and Crook County are taking the stance that the 7th's decision is only an advisory and has no effect on law.

They beleive that they can do as they please even after the 180 days are up, that means making thier own laws to prohibit carry.

Chicago and Crook County apparently is more than happy to waste tax dollars on litigation.

Not if the General Assembly changes the law and the Governor signs off on it.  We'll see how bold he's willing to be, I haven't heard any similar rhetoric from him.

btw - Will UUW and AUUW automatically be rescinded from the books or does there need to be a formal repeal?

Edited by oneshot, 21 February 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[skinnyb82]

CA7's decision is only advisory?  Ok well in that case, IL laws are just "advisory."  They can go ahead and violate peoples' civil rights and see what happens.  The county will be writing massive checks to settle tens, maybe hundreds of lawsuits.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2