.jpg.71eaff38e962ec6e7da65bf76756475d.jpg)
springfield shooter
-
Posts
1,380 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by springfield shooter
-
-
On 3/27/2023 at 8:27 PM, Euler said:
Correct, the decision is only a denial of a preliminary injunction. The case itself has not been heard.
"Thanks", to you and Molly both.
-
On 3/27/2023 at 8:11 PM, Upholder said:
They get it. They're actively trying to get around it.
So much for fidelity to their oaths.
-
On 3/24/2023 at 10:22 PM, Upholder said:
Page 20:
Show me any military using Ruger 10/22 for warfare. I'll wait.
While you wait, you may want to follow my late father's sage advice, and not hold your breath.
-
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.
-
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.
-
On 3/16/2023 at 8:22 PM, steveTA84 said:
.......their last hope is a jury full of idiots/people willing to side with them over their own political beliefs
Down here? They may as well howl at the moon.
-
On 3/16/2023 at 8:11 PM, Upholder said:
I'm skimming through the various filings and this bit caught my eye from Docket entry 55:
They won't even admit that the quotations of the law are accurate.
But they are sure it's constitutional. 🙄😎
-
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.
-
On 3/14/2023 at 7:28 PM, Upholder said:
@steveTA84 Thanks for your diligence in keeping up on this -- I assume you've forwarded it all to Bishop on Air...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
On 3/2/2023 at 6:38 PM, steveTA84 said:
If you’re drinking anything, put it down before reading this
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?
-
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.
-
On 2/22/2023 at 10:17 AM, Upholder said:
Defendant's Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Brief Filed on February 10 2023:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.642089/gov.uscourts.casd.642089.170.0.pdf
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.
-
".... 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?
-
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.
-
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
-
On 1/31/2023 at 4:14 PM, Upholder said:
I will note that the Appeals court ruling spend a number of paragraphs stating that while they are overturning the TRO on the Three Readings claim II, they appear to be very unhappy with the behavior of the legislature in this matter. They go on to state:
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".
-
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 1/26/2023 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."
Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion
Posted
The judge in the above case is an Obama appointee.