Jump to content

springfield shooter

Supporting Team I
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by springfield shooter

  1. On 3/16/2023 at 9:10 PM, Upholder said:

    It is my understanding (as a non-lawyer) that Juries are finders of fact.  Judges apply laws.  There are no facts here, only laws to be interpreted and thus a Jury trial is inappropriate.


    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.

  2. On 3/15/2023 at 4:43 PM, steveTA84 said:


    "....The truth of the matter is my name is on these suits because I am an official representative of the state of Illinois,” Pritzker said. 

    Pritzker said the gun ban challenge, or the challenge to the Pretrial Fairness Act he also signed, don’t have anything to do specifically with him, he just so happens to be the governor. As to what he wanted from donating that much, he said he wants good people to get elected...."


    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.

  3. On 3/13/2023 at 6:45 PM, steveTA84 said:

    Just keeps getting better 😂😂😂😂. So......the ILSC justices are financially tied to lawyers acting on behalf of Everytown in IL in a federal case against the gun ban. Add that in to the mix and it just makes it worse for those two




    EAST ST. LOUIS – National group Everytown for Gun Safety moved on March 9 to file a brief as friend of U. S. district court in favor of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s law regulating semi automatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines.

    The group’s counsel Bhavani Raveendran attached the brief, in which he claims the Fourteenth Amendment amended the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    Raveendran practices at the Romanucci and Blandin injury firm in Chicago.


    The firm and its leader Antonio Romanucci have contributed $1,574,601.54 to political campaigns, more than a third of it in the last three years.

    Last year he and his firm delivered $105,000 for successful Supreme Court candidates Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien.

    Rochford and O’Brien will participate in resolution of constitutional challenges in state courts.


    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.

  4. On 3/4/2023 at 10:16 AM, steveTA84 said:

    I wouldn’t gamble them doing that. Remember that the new justices are Everytown endorsed (and were part of a recent campaign finance scheme)



    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.

  5. On 3/2/2023 at 6:38 PM, steveTA84 said:

    If you’re drinking anything, put it down before reading this 720D0AB3-6F6B-417E-88E2-7B3969710021.png.2ecf5e45e4ea27c2d9d392c82f1666e1.png


    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?

  6. On 2/26/2023 at 6:00 PM, Upholder said:

    The state immediately opens with Interest Balancing:


    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.

  7. On 2/22/2023 at 10:17 AM, Upholder said:

    Defendant's Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Brief Filed on February 10 2023:





    Among other things, it cites the Bevis v Illinois ruling from the other day, the hilariously inaccurate Col Tucker declaration and the recent rulings relating to Oregon measure 114:




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

  8. On 2/16/2023 at 2:30 PM, Jeffrey said:

    I am eager to see the "examples" they trot out.  Having decades worth of time to put this list together I can fully understand why the judge wouldn't think they'd need even more time.


    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.

  • Create New...