Does the recent court ruling in California have any implications for Cook County

[CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER]

Does the recent court ruling in California allowing extended magazines have any implications for Cook County's ban on Rifles with more than 10 rounds? I want to buy an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine but i can not legally keep it in Cook County currently.

[mic6010]

I'm not an expert at all, but I believe the case would have to go before the supremes and the ruling come down from on high in order for it to affect all of the land.

This recent ruling only affects the areas that the appellate court who issued it covers.

 

But, there's a good chance the anti gunners will appeal this ruling, in which case we will get our chance to do just that. They just can't handle that "we the people" might have rights that they don't agree with. Their arrogance in the face of our constitutionally protected rights will be their ultimate undoing.

 

So don't worry....you're safe....for now. But freedom is coming for ya.

[bmyers]

My guess is no, not at this point.

 

This ruling is only in the 9th Court, so not our area. Yet, if it goes further and ends up at SCOTUS, it could very well change it across the country.

 

If it is upheld and doesn't go to SCOTUS, I would think it would provide grounds to challenge other restrictive magazine bans outside of the 9th and potentially getting a favorable ruling in other areas or creating a conflict causing the case to have to go to SCOTUS.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Different circuit so not directly.

 

A favorable decision by the 9th could be sited when challenging the Cook County AWB.

 

A favorable SCOTUS ruling COULD effect Cook County, depending on how it is written.

[cybermgk]

I do think it and others like it might slow, or forestall new bills being put to a vote. Just a hunch. That is until a final ruling is made.

[bmyers]

I would agree that a prudent person would slow, see what the court is doing and then decide if they are going to pass new bills.

 

This is the State of Illinois. My guess, they will take the ruling as they need to hurry up and get something passed so they can have it on the books to show that they tried to do something and waste $$$$ fighting to keep their unconstitutional law.

[357]

Same laws from the same people and the judge said because of the Supreme Court's Heller decision which applies to Illinois too. Since they are unconstitutional in California, they are unconstitutional here too.

[Plinkermostly]

I am certain that the recent trends (not the least of which is this ruling in one of the most LWW leaning districts) is going to give some pause for thought -- as to whether it will have an actual impact -- likely have to crawl up the court system before it causes real change -- but it will definitely get their attention.

[C0untZer0]

The ruling politicians in Illinois and their advisers have long held the opinion that nothing really matters except their own ideas and their power. After the ruling in Moore v Madigan 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers that they could ignore the ruling because, “Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional."

 

Scott Drury, on the Illinois House Floor, urged members of the Illinois General Assembly to ignore court rulings unless and until they had gone all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

When we have people in Illinois government who advocate for ignoring legal ruling handed down by the 7th Circuit, they're probably not going to pay any heed to rulings in the other circuits.

[C0untZer0]

There is also an incredible amount of ignorance and arrogance among Illinois lawmakers. They don't get elected because they are knowledgeable about the constitution or are especially skilled at crafting good law. Most of them get elected by promising free stuff.

 

So they get into office completely ignorant of what has gone before, and they propose bills are that are blatantly unconstitutional.

 

They are morons, but they're arrogant self-righteous morons with an unshakable belief in their own superiority. They have no moral underpinning but they feel they answer to a higher calling than the Constitution of the United States. Those idiots will keep cranking out gun control bills regardless of what happens at any court, including the Supreme Court.

[herrmannd]

"....-they're arrogant self-righteous morons with an unshakable belief in their own superiority. They have no moral underpinning but they feel they answer to a higher calling than the Constitution of the United States. "

 

Wow! That was very well said. It is amazing that the very people who have no objective foundation for their subjective and relative morality think that their morality-of-the-moment must be relentlessly enforced on others.

[Plinkermostly]

Say what you will (based on logic, history, court decisions, the Constitution, etc.)-- they MUST be doing something right -- they keep getting elected.

[cybermgk]

Say what you will (based on logic, history, court decisions, the Constitution, etc.)-- they MUST be doing something right -- they keep getting elected.

OR they get elected via the corrupt Dem machine in Illinois

[357]

Say what you will (based on logic, history, court decisions, the Constitution, etc.)-- they MUST be doing something right -- they keep getting elected.

All they care about is getting money from Bloomberg.

[Glock23]

Magazine size aside, doesn't Cook have an "assault weapons" ban anyway?

 

So you couldn't own an AK47 in Cook anyway.