springfield shooter

An in-person status hearing (in front of an apparently agitated judge) in the ND April 3. An afternoon set aside for the April 12 hearing in the SD. April could be a very significant month.

Thanks for the insight Todd.

Are issues of constitutional interpretation even open to a jury?

AR15s are not "unusual" in the Southern District of IL. I'm just sayin'. Ps: I'll admit if I'm wrong, but here's doubting they get a jury on the issue of constitutionality.

Yeah, I was wondering what place a jury would have in determining constitutional questions. But, I'm not a lawyer either. Here's hoping one chimes in.

Down here? They may as well howl at the moon.

But they are sure it's constitutional. 🙄😎

The truth of the matter is that the laws in question....laws that the governor both championed and signed....are being challenged before the highest court in the state. On said court are seated two judges to whom the governor personally donated a million bucks each to help them get elected. Elected to sit on a court which would certainly judge cases with which he had an intense personal interest. That's the truth of the matter.

I'm sure Judge McGlynn will be swayed by that 14th/2nd Amendment argument. I'm equally sure the moon is made of green cheese.

I notice that JB (circled text three posts above) doesn't differentiate between the state being a defendant, and he himself being named as such. But that kind of makes a difference, no?

Then the issue is still before the Federal SD of IL court (and may be anyway?). It would be great to have the Dems' shenanigans declared unconstitutional under the Illinois Constitution. It would be better to have the 2A issues settled (read defeated) under the Constitution of the United States.

Do the people that wrote for the defendants have any evidence that the technology they used to produce their response (and avail themselves of their First Amendment rights) was available in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted? I mean, that's their criteria....right?

Huh. I thought that wasn't a thing anymore. Do they not read the SCOTUS rulings....Or is "interest balancing" all they've got? PS: when someone opens with current events (tragic as they may be), you can figure they haven't got the law on their side. And they know it.

Because the 2nd Amendment says I can have one. Or 15, for that matter.

From what little I've read about him, I don't think the Hon. Roger T. Benitez will be impressed.

👍

Done.

".... and have a muzzle velocity "four times higher than a high-powered semiautomatic firearm." Is there any chance that she knows how impressively wrong this is?

Surely the people that wrote this carefully considered law for the state have not only a list, but also the "illustrative examples of each and every item banned" that Judge McGlynn has ordered them to produce.

So, in his view, the ILGA can pass a law abrogating the First Amendment, and that law must be enforced until found unconstitutional by a court. That's what is actually being said here.

Of the sixteen active judges on the 5th Circuit, twelve were appointed by Republicans. Six of the twelve by Donald Trump. I don't think AG Garland is looking at great odds on appeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

NO WAY.

So if the state Supreme Court won't take up the matter of bogus three readings procedures, there must be a way to take that to federal court as well. Otherwise, there is no rule of law for the state's citizens to petition for a "redress of grievances".

Admitting I'm no legal beagle....if the "fundamental right" is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution (and considering the Constitution's Supremacy Clause), I don't see how. Well, "how" they can, and then make it stick.