Jump to content

springfield shooter

Supporting Team I
  • Posts

    1,025
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by springfield shooter

  1. On 8/4/2022 at 6:20 AM, mauserme said:

    Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas said. Instead, they should only weigh whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

     

    In other words, consistent with the supreme law of the land. Oh....the humanity!

  2. On 7/30/2022 at 8:28 AM, mauserme said:

     

    To overcome the filibuster it would take first, ten Republicans who not only believe in a ban but also that this particular bill is the way to do it and, second, that don't care about the consequences of an affirmative vote or don't perceive that there would be negative political consequences.  I don't believe that combination can be found in the current makeup of the Senate.

     

     

     

    I don't believe 50 Democrats will vote for this. Jon Testor of Montana (Trump by 16%), and Joe Manchin of West Virginia (Trump by almost 39%) are (IMO) both doubtful. 

  3. On 7/21/2022 at 9:03 AM, Ranger said:

    They know this is unlikely to withstand SCOTUS; but believe it will help them win votes and keep majorities this fall.  I hope they are wrong abou tthat.

     

    If it gets that far, it won't get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. Matter of fact, I don't think it would get 50.

     

    But I believe you are correct, it's about political theater.

  4. On 7/13/2022 at 9:51 AM, MrTriple said:

    Forget the disarmament part, they merely want to appease scared suburban voters and pretend that they're "doing something".

     

    The real question, given how bad the environment is for the Democrats nationally (the GOP is now making a push to flip deep-blue seats, that's how bad things are) do they actually have the votes for a special session, at least on guns?

     

    The Democrats have to be careful that they don't do anything that could hinder the reelection chances of their more "moderate" candidates in vulnerable seats. Even Illinois isn't going to be immune from the effects of the national environment, and we should fully expect at least several seats to flip, including ones that nobody sees coming.

     

    No doubt they are currently looking at saving purplish seats. The thing we need is long memories. Trust is earned.

  5. On 7/9/2022 at 9:42 PM, MrTriple said:

    I think the real question is the Senate, where the Democrats have a 6-seat supermajority. What I wonder is how many of those six seats are held by downstate, central, and/or rural state senators who would face a difficult re-election bid because of the issue, particularly given the likelihood that both 2022 and 2024 will be highly favorable years for the Republicans.

     

    The question for them then becomes, "is it worth the political risk to pass a bill that'll be challenged in court almost immediately in a post-Bruen environment, particularly if it could cost the Democratic Party its supermajority in the State Senate? Especially over something that may not ultimately withstand constitutional scrutiny?"

     

    Per the map linked to below, they currently hold 5 seats from Bloomington/Peoria (the 46th District) south.

     

    https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/map-of-illinois-state-senate-districts

  6. On 7/9/2022 at 5:53 PM, vk60187 said:

    Problem is, the IL Supreme Court already ruled assault weapons ban of Deerfield constitutional. 
     

    https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/courts/2021/11/19/illinois-supreme-court-upholds-deerfield-ban-assault-weapons/8685350002/

     

    Remember, this would likely be decided in federal court.

    There are knowledgeable people on this forum that believe with the recent SCOTUS ruling against New York state, we would be well positioned to prevail against a statewide AWB.

    Might take a while, or maybe not.

  7. On 7/9/2022 at 1:14 PM, vk60187 said:

    If you had to wager, do you think the bill would pass?

     

    I don't have the expertise to give you a good answer. There haven't been (yet) any downstate Dem senators co-sponsor the Senate bill. And only one representative on the House bill.

     

    If the Republicans hang together and all vote "no", the Democrats still have the numbers to pass with a super majority. But it might cost them some of the few downstate seats they have. If they don't care, they can pass whatever they want to.

     

    If they do pass anything, I feel confident (as an interested observer) saying it'll be challenged in court.

  8. On 7/9/2022 at 1:31 AM, markthesignguy said:

    how many representatives that have jumped onto HB5522 are lame ducks?

     

     

    77 Willis is one...

    16 Stoneback

     

     

     

     

    How many are from downstate? Unless you consider Peoria "downstate"....as of yesterday evening, only one.

     

    From St. Clair county.

     

    One of the two counties in the southern half of the state to vote Biden in 2020.

  9. On 7/4/2022 at 7:57 AM, mauserme said:

    My opinion is that this was all by design to allow them to eventually track every firearm owned in Illinois. If gun registration was the big surprise in a last minute amendment it appeared to be, the ISRA would have objected.  They said nothing.

     

    The ISRA was on board with that every step of the way.

     

    Which is why I am no longer a member.

  10. On 6/24/2022 at 2:02 PM, spanishjames said:

    The riots and unrest that transpired over the last couple years awakened many of the people who'd normally be anti-gun, to the fact that they're responsible for their own safety and well-being. 

     

    Anti-gun legislation will always be unpopular so long as the government is unable to provide adequate protection for its citizens. 

     

    Or unwilling.

  11. On 6/23/2022 at 10:28 AM, bmyers said:

    I like Alito's response to the dissent

     

    In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?  (Pg 71 of the PDF)

     

    When a judge writing an opinion resorts to "the feelz", they probably don't have the Constitution on their side....and they know it.

     

  12. On 6/9/2022 at 8:20 AM, cybermgk said:

    Intersting arbitrary round count on the mag ban, max of 14.  It;s beyond stupid.  It would make illegal a vast majority of even handgun mags, that most have, as they are generally 15-17 rds if talking 9mm.  BUT, I guarentee if law, there would be glock 14 rd mags in a heartbeat, for sale.  And it solves nothing, nothing at all.

     

    But it lets them virtue signal.

×
×
  • Create New...