.jpg.71eaff38e962ec6e7da65bf76756475d.jpg)
springfield shooter
-
Posts
1,336 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by springfield shooter
-
-
On 1/31/2023 at 4:13 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:
One more thing...
The majority opinion stated they were going to continue to interest balance. Which, I guess they can, because they are a state court.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.
-
On 1/30/2023 at 3:56 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:
The weapons of war argument is easy to defeat. All guns were once weapons of war. Double action and single action revolvers were once weapons of war. Bolt actions were weapons of war and so were pump shotguns.
If modern semi-automatic firearms can be banned for being weapons of war, then there is nothing to stop the State from banning other types of weapons that were once the mainstay of armies during almost every war of the last century.The "weapons of war" shtick is just that....shtick. It is something that they hope catches the ear of uninformed people that think with their feelings/emotions.
-
On 1/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, Hap said:
Yeah, good luck with that. Pre NYSRPA v Bruen this sort of thing stood a chance; now it's just a trash can stuffer.
Understanding that Bruen took care of this argument .....Unusual is understood to mean "uncommon", or "rare".
The (legal) population of the United States is approximately 330,000,000. Divided by roughly 20,000,000 AR15s, that comes to one AR15 per every 16.5 Americans. 1 per 16.5 Americans hardly qualifies as "unusual".
-
On 1/26/2023 at 8:17 PM, G214me said:
Bad idea all around, Brandon Kelly is hoping to get all cases dismissed or knocked down in one move by an Odumbo stooge judge.
If that's the case, they can hope all they want. This isn't going away.
-
On 1/26/2023 at 3:59 PM, Talonap said:
So people are being bought off to do this.
Well, this link from another thread says no. The article, from the Madison-St. Clair Record and dated 6/8/2016, gives the reason for Judge Gilbert's recusals.
"U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert will no longer preside over cases involving state government due to his position as trustee at Southern Illinois University."
-
On 1/24/2023 at 2:34 PM, yurimodin said:
So he was on the bench all through the 1994-2004 unconstitutional Clinton AWB.
Is that pertinent?
-
On 1/24/2023 at 1:58 PM, Upholder said:
The judge listed at the docket link above is John Phil Gilbert. Judge Gilbert was appointed by President G.H.W. Bush in 1992. He has served in senior status since 2014.
-
On 1/23/2023 at 9:39 PM, Tvandermyde said:
he says he's got 400 signed up so far
and the three links above are the groups that get money direct to our efforts.
I'll be sending a little your way as well.
-
On 1/20/2023 at 6:57 PM, Molly B. said:
From AG Raoul’s office…
We disagree with the court’s decision. We have filed a notice of appeal and will ask the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the TRO.
Anyone surprised?
-
On 1/20/2023 at 5:31 PM, Matt B said:
Yeah JB is talking a big game that the 7th circuit will bail his gun ban out. I’m not so sure about that.
The current makeup of the active judges on the 7th Circuit bench is one Reagan appointee, two by GWB, three by Biden, and four by Trump...with one vacant seat.
The supervising SCOTUS justice is Barrett.
I like our chances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit
-
On 1/20/2023 at 8:20 AM, countyline said:
I've done exactly that on CapFax, and anyone who's spent more than 5 minutes there knows exactly what happened, "Thats a separate issue", then instantly blocked from commenting further.
They blocked you from commenting? Apparently they are confident in the logic of their positions, and also their ability to defend them.
-
On 1/19/2023 at 7:35 PM, mauserme said:
The people calling for his resignation need to realize, though, that they are in office because of districts contrived to ensure they would be elected. Sheriff Mendrick, on the other hand, has the straight up grass roots support of the people of DuPage County. No tricks. No gerrymandering. Just plain old support.
That isn't meant in any way to diminish what he's doing. On the contrary, it's because he is a man of good character that he's in office, with no shenanigans needed.
Sheriff Mendrick was reelected last November, running unopposed. Overall, the people of DuPage County must be quite satisfied with his performance. If not, surely a county of over 900,000 people could have fielded an electoral opponent.
https://www.sj-r.com/elections/results/race/2022-11-08-other-IL-15826/
-
On 1/18/2023 at 9:35 PM, G214me said:
......or maybe a SCOTUS justice that doesn't know what a woman is.
Nah. We've already got one of those.
-
On 1/18/2023 at 9:16 PM, howie said:
Maybe they're wanting to see how the lower courts rule post Bruen?
I believe you are correct.
"Multiple challenges to the new law are continuing to play out in lower courts."
-
On 1/18/2023 at 4:58 PM, jcable2 said:
Chad Miller
Judge Miller is in Jasper County. I wonder how that happened?
https://fourthcircuitil.com/the-court-system/circuit-court-judges-associate-judges/
-
I can only speak for myself when I say I'd rather see the lawyers go in there ready and loaded for bear, than not be fully prepared.
We don't want to see our legal teams just beat this law. We want to see them completely dismantle it.
-
On 1/17/2023 at 8:20 PM, steveTA84 said:
Now they set their sights on Kane County
I wonder how she feels about immigration law?
-
On 1/16/2023 at 9:18 PM, Evil Porkchop said:
It was very short. To summarize. Tucker basically said only tyrants want to ban firearms and also highlighted nearly every Sheriff said I will not enforce this. Wilhour said we will not comply, it's unconstitutional and Illinois has bigger problems than guns.
Thanks. 👍
-
On 1/16/2023 at 8:38 PM, mab22 said:
Don’t forget, semi automatic weapons have “Full semiautomatic mode”.
Without watching the video....I guess "full semi-automatic" mode is when you keep them clean enough that they don't jam?
-
So how did Tucker do? Did he ask good questions? And did Wilhour have good answers/make good points?
-
On 1/15/2023 at 8:19 PM, Craigcr2 said:
I actually think it’s a passive aggressive way of expressing disagreement with the test. The judge in Mississippi didn’t even try to hide his distain for the Bruen opinion. Here’s his order:
”The Bruen Court acknowledged only that “historical analysis can be difficult.” 142 S. Ct. at 2130 (cleaned up). “t some‐ times requires resolving threshold questions, and making nu‐ anced judgments about which evidence to consult and how to interpret it.” Id.
That is an understatement.
This Court is not a trained historian. The Justices of the Su‐ preme Court, distinguished as they may be, are not trained historians. We lack both the methodological and substantive knowledge that historians possess.”https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23255743/us-v-bullock-historian-order.pdf
Do you think disdain as well for having to rule faithfully according to the decision?
-
On 1/15/2023 at 7:29 AM, Craigcr2 said:
This is a small but growing trend among judges of a particular ideological bias. There have been similar orders from federal courts in Mississippi and Washington (state).
So....an attempt at delaying the inevitable?
-
On 1/15/2023 at 5:34 PM, mauserme said:
The coalition of pro-gun groups in Illinois chose to refuse any negotiation because of how strongly we felt about our ability to win this in court.
Apparently a lot of people whose job is to enforce the law feel the same.
And we should make no mistake, ultimately this isn't just about the 2A. It's about the Constitution as a whole.
-
If you aren't familiar with it, "Reason" is a libertarian leaning publication. Here's a two paragraph section of the article:
"Speaking of the Supreme Court, how is H.B. 5471 likely to fare against the inevitable constitutional challenges? In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court said the Second Amendment covers arms "in common use" for "lawful purposes," a description that plainly applies to the guns and magazines that Illinois has banned. Last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices said gun control laws must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
After Bruen, the Court vacated four appeals court decisions upholding state bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines. It instructed the lower courts to reconsider those cases in light of Bruen. The Firearms Policy Coalition and other gun rights groups argue that "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits clearly fail the Bruen test."
Accuracy Firearms, et al v Pritzker - Effingham Co - Gun/Mag Ban - Att. Thomas DeVore
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion
Posted
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".