Jump to content


Supporting Team I
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views

hceuterpe's Achievements


Member (3/24)

  1. At this point I think the best and most feasible outcome that could happen for NRA, is for the 501c3 Foundation wing to split off and focus solely on gun safety, competitions, and training. Basically getting back to their roots. I think the lobbying is what started all the corruption currently plaguing the NRA. Besides in recent times, other organizations have fared far better in legislative/lobbying efforts, and also court cases (like SAF). Leave these efforts to others and the NRA should cease this activity altogether.
  2. Nor would the 4th amendment protect against newer forms of information/records storage and retrieval like computers, cell phones, online Internet accounts, video/audio recording devices, etc.
  3. While not the best outcome. the more bizarre and ridiculous the ruling, (and this is so insanely flawed), the better to leverage in an appeal.
  4. So odd the commonly held yet bizarre notion that merely restricting ownership/possession of firearms for someone deemed too violent in the context of domestic abuse likelihood would alone completely dissuade them in acting upon it. If they're such a risk, it's not like they could carry that out with any other implement they devise as a weapon in which, a normally nonviolent person would consider innocuous. If they're that dangerous to restrict firearm possession for alleged (yet not convicted) domestic violence, then why are they not in jail? Then again this the commonly held mentality to restrict 2A rights in general of that particular political ideology--if we just ban guns, the violence and crime goes away, right?? /S
  5. Isn't this merely about granting an injunction or not? Would imagine that should go faster.
  6. IDHS defines it further: "Developmental Disability (DD): A disability which is attributable to an intellectual disability or a related condition. (Refer to the definitions of an intellectual disability and related condition for further details.)" "Intellectual Disability (ID): Refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested before the age of 18 years. Significantly subaverage is defined as an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 70 or below on standardized measures of intelligence. This upper limit could be extended upward depending on the reliability of the intelligence test used. " https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=53030 Curious if you have records of any formal IQ testing done, as that's pretty commonly done to diagnose ADHD. Or, have an official one conducted now? Perhaps then you can appeal it as a records challenge? Being in special ed classes based on the claim of that doc is absolutely BS. That alone does not classify you as having an ID. IDPs are pretty common in schools, and that doesn't classify you as having an ID by itself. And, school performance by itself does not classify you to be having an ID, either. I'd go to a different evaluator if I were you, I don't think he knows what he's doing... Having a true ID, would woefully disqualify you from ever getting a LEO job, anywhere. 70 IQ is really low. It's roughly 2 SD below average, which would place you in the bottom 2%. It's probably too late, but I'd report that quack doctor, if I were you.
  7. So another question that has been on my mind. In the Bruen ruling, the 14th amendment is mentioned time again. Specifically the equal protection clause is huge in that case specifically, along with Heller. So why do the states keep throwing out racist gun restrictions in support of their bans, that would be found unconstitutional (due to 14th amendment) today? Do they actually, honestly expect those specific laws to cite examples of, to actually stick and be valid? Or are they just really bad lawyers??? These are some of the same people that champion equality and civil rights more vocally and louder than just about anyone, yet when the 2A rolls around all they can think about to justify their bans, is more historically racist bans...
  8. I had a feeling this would cause a stir... I just want to make it clear here that I personally think it's unconstitutional to ban .50BMG. Rather if I was forced to argue against it (remember high school debate?) that's the argument I'd go with and I have to admit it is somewhat easier to argue against it then say mag limits. Perhaps also what the state might use, too (so we should be prepared). Would it win? I hope not, but at the same time it's not quite a slam dunk argument on why banning AR-15s or mag cap limits are grossly unconstitutional. It's such a small piece of the AWB that I doubt that alone would merit the law to stand in any way. However if this happens, I won't be surprised if they try to enact a new law targeting .50BMG specifically...
  9. I hate to point this out because I don't think it should be banned either, rather I'm going to play devil's advocate here and throw some arguments that very well might be presented over this: But I'm afraid to say that I'm not sure the .50BMG round passes the dangerous and unusual test. Ownership of .50BMG I'm certain to say is very rare among gun owners and arguably so for many reasons such as cost, intended purpose, and ability to handle the power of the cartridge. It's always been rare, too. The cartridge was originally created to take down planes, not stop people. Even today a primary use in the military (at least not involving use in the M2 machine gun) is to disable vehicles. For civilian use that'd be hard to justify as a lawful purpose... As for self defense I'm not sure you can justify it being practical for defending home and property either--as really the only justification for it's use beyond taking out a vehicle, is really long distance shots above the alternatives, and that far exceeds what I think you can justify for self defense. As for long distance shots, it's a REALLY long distance and numerous cartridges that are still legal in IL (in the context of the new ban itself) exist that are actually better for even this purpose, too. As for the dangerousness of it: no body armor exists that will stop it and even if it did the impact would still likely kill the person. Also honestly I'm not sure I would know many people that could even physically shoot it, safely. Yes the argument can still be made to qualify the test to keep it legal, but I think the counter points outweigh it... That and machine guns are two aspects that I think wouldn't stand up to Bruen. All the other restrictions though are doomed in light of Bruen.
  10. Tbh that order sounds like a teacher assigning a remedial term paper to a student who couldn't follow instructions the first time.😂
  11. Could have been worse. He could have agreed and in turn written an unfavorable eval... The whole evaluation from *any* doctor (and not one that specializes in behavior health) is further proof the over 5 years facet is BS. They wouldn't be considered qualified in any way for any other mental health matter.
  12. There in lies another problem: If due process is strictly a judicial instrument, seems like it's busted as heck when an executive branch agency unconstitutionally gets the power to act like a court? FOID days are numbered. I'd love to hear the state and its goons argue the constitutionality when it's the same group of people decrying that it's unconstitutional to show ID to vote (it's the closest comparison I can currently think of because using the example of requiring drivers licenses is totally flawed)...
  13. Surprised to have not seen this discussion already here. https://casetext.com/case/hart-v-the-ill-state-police https://madisonrecord.com/stories/632954967-supreme-court-will-hear-state-police-appeal-in-foid-case-state-wants-to-keep-wraps-on-applicant-files There are actually two plaintiffs. What I find extra egregious is this snippet: ¶ 27 "[A] court presumes that the General Assembly did not intend absurdity, inconvenience, or injustice in enacting legislation." People v. Casler, 2020 IL 125117, ¶ 24. Here, Burgess states that "it makes absolute sense for the government to keep private names and addresses of FOID card holders" but argues that he already knows his own name, address, and that his FOID card was revoked. Burgess argues that he "just wants to know why" (emphasis in original) in order to seek an appeal of the revocation. We agree. Not sure how you could possibly claim the FOID system and especially appeals procedure affords adequate due process when ISP goes so far as to deny releasing information about your revocation to help you appeal it, on FOIA exemption grounds. And then further fights tooth and nail to appeal to the (IL?) supreme court.
  14. Not only that, but instead of the cop obtaining legal counsel on his own or through the union, the city themselves is representing him. Hard to argue there's only a few rotten apples when the city itself is throwing in their legal resources to assist. I've been watching lots of audit videos and getting more familiar with the legalities of cop stops. In particular even for stop and identify states, a cop can't demand/compel you to provide identity on a whim. Only if arrested or detained for reasonable suspicion of a crime. It's not the driver's fault that sizable chunks of your dumpy city is full of crime and prostitutes, let alone being aware of this, as he was out of town. Certainly not justified in violating several of his civil rights. Not to mention the cop losing all impartiality in conducting this stop as a fishing exercise primarily because the driver got lost in a dumpy part of your city--i.e. even if not immediately obvious, let's keep looking unconstitutionally until I find something illegal, or if necessary assumed to be illegal, expired. Not sure anyone can argue that, assumed to be illegal/expired without validating first could ever possibly be construed as reasonable...
  • Create New...