Jump to content

springfield shooter

Supporting Team I
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by springfield shooter

  1. On 7/18/2023 at 5:22 PM, Flynn said:


    Yep, I recently saw several Tweets on Twitter where the anti-gunners were promoting that list and telling you to find all the home-based FFLs in your area and once found telling you to basically harass them and shame them with all your neighbors and report them to the police for anything you can...


    Yeah. That'd work great where I live.

  2. On 7/16/2023 at 7:55 PM, Flynn said:

    Another activist judge that is entirely ignoring court precedent in favor of their personal feelings...


    So many flaws in her ruling that it's nearly comical to read...


    I hate to say it, she's a Trump appointee. 


    Perhaps the vetting process was flawed? Or maybe, you never know.

  3. On 6/30/2023 at 8:44 AM, EdDinIL said:

    Unless that "task force" has been quietly amassing untold numbers of search warrants issued by a friendly judge AND assembling teams of well-armed troopers to execute those warrants, they really can't get everyone all at once.  What they can do is get a few key individuals, loudly and publicly, to scare the rest of the non-compliant folks into registering.


    Do county judges issue warrants for the individual counties they serve in?

  4. On 6/26/2023 at 9:24 PM, Tvandermyde said:



    Our lead attorney Chuck Michell will be in town for the oral arguments and there will be two fundraisers for this case you can click on the above link to get a ticket. 


    One will be Thursday evening after the Oral arguments at Maxon Shooter and the other will be Friday at Aurora Sportsmen's club. Donations are made out to SADEC -- Second Amendment Defense and Education Committee. 


    Come on out and hear it from the horses mouth as Chuck is the one responsible for the Duncan magazine case in California as well as Rhode, Rupp and others. 


    Donation/ticket links don't seem to be working.

  5. On 6/26/2023 at 8:47 AM, Bitter Clinger said:

    Some of us just want to be left alone.

    We're sick of the gov sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.


    Why can't I just go to the range and have a nice day without wondering if what I'm bringing is "allowed" in this state?



    Why? Because IL is not about responsible legal firearms ownership. And it is certainly not about the Constitution of The United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.


    And apparently, that appears to go for some Federal judges too.

  6. On 6/6/2023 at 10:08 PM, Flynn said:


    It's becoming more and more clear that we will need to add to Heller/Bruen and make it a trifecta before many of these inferior courts finally get it and undestand that pre-Heller/Bruen precedent is no longer valid precedent unless it was based on the precedent established in Bruen and not something else like scrutiny, feelings or whatever else.


    They don't want to "get it".

  7. On 5/17/2023 at 5:09 PM, MrTriple said:

    Bear in mind that this bill was introduced by senators and congressmen sitting in safe blue seats. But would a Sherrod Brown or a Joe Manchin or a Krysten Sinema risk their seats over something like that? No.


    Pretty sure you can add Jon Tester (D-MT) to that list. In 2020, Trump won MT by over 16 pts.

  8. The conservatives on the Court didn't bend when the pro-abortion thugs started threatening them in their homes....and in Coney Barrett's case, doxxing her children. I don't think they are going to bend now.


    When Senator Durbin tried to get CJ Roberts to appear (supposedly) concerning SCOTUS ethics, the Chief Justice sent him a letter basically saying the Court handles it's own ethics issues. Said letter being signed by all nine members of the Court. IOW, "Stay in your own lane senator. We are a co-equal branch of the government."

  9. On 5/4/2023 at 5:09 PM, Euler said:


    The stay was issued by Easterbrook alone.


    It's worth pointing out that Barnett et al. may respond to the stay to have it lifted, but (as posted above) the response needs to address Friedman v Highland Park and Wilson v Cook County. That provides us with some indication why the stay was issued in the first place. CA7 (or at least Easterbrook) considers McGlynn's injunction defective because it didn't address the precedent.






  10. On 5/2/2023 at 6:07 PM, steveTA84 said:

    So I guess the state is impatient and can’t wait till the 8th. They’re attempting to break procedure. Their argument? AR-15’s are machine guns…




    "This is an extraordinary move and one that displays that the State believes it is above the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."


    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? This state believes that it's above the Constitution of the United States.



  • Create New...