davel501

Right, but didn't Bruen limit that to limitations in place before the 14th amendment?

Post-Bruen, can they even force manufacturers?

If you want to support this case: Felon Slap- Firearms Policy Coalition| Mock V Garland | Big Tex Ordnance

What does it matter? The plaintiffs are trying to stall the case until the state awb is struck down rather than get mooted and have to start over again.

"the plaintiffs win because you snuck around and did this in secret in the dark of the night"

The way Devore explained it is that it is binding on all courts in the state. You'd have to file a lawsuit yourself and cite the ruling to get it applied to you, but you should now be able to do that in any court in the state.

It's called getting burned in discovery. He's going to take a blowtorch to them. He can keep pushing to fill in the gaps in conversations until he has everything if the judge lets him. Just telling your side piece about the bill you are voting on could make that conversation in-scope for discovery, leading into more digging to figure out their relationship to the case. Going to depend on how they do the discovery though too. If legislators are required to turn over anything then he won't get much but if he's allowed to use phone company records it could get really good.

You're thinking too small. He's going to have access to all the bad things those folks are doing. All the in-fighting, adultery and off-color comments will be his to read in open court.

This is glorious.

The best part is that it's another direction that they are boxed in on. They need to look like complete and utter fools by the time this is over.

The great illinois firearm law fire sale...everything must go! I love it!

You think they could make JB do PT?

So who wants to guess on a the date this decision drops? I'm going with by 1/31 mostly because I want to hear something by the end of January., 😁

The reply states that they do not object to combining the cases but it seems impractical to since the cases are at such different phases. If they are combined the Highland Park case cannot be allowed to slow the existing case. Basically, the plaintiffs don't object if it results in a summary judgement in their favor on both cases.

If this is real he should be disbarred.

That's HB-5855. The Safe-T act is most notably about bail and pretrial detention.

I like the hat. I need to sign up for one of his classes next time he's back in town.

Gotta work in the My Cousin Vinny reference...every oppressed gun owner in the state after reading that:

It is glorious. #35 in Bevis v. City of Naperville, Illinois (N.D. Ill., 1:22-cv-04775) – CourtListener.com gov.uscourts.ilnd.418943.35.0[1].pdf

That would be the greatest check ever.

Wouldn't the risk be a directed verdict? Seems like 2 different ways for the state to lose this case instead of just one.

To quote a former governor: "we've got this thing and it's f'n golden". The state has never had to defend an infringement of a "super charged right" before.

Couldn't the state choose not to defend the law, allowing it to be struck down?

That would be an uphill climb considering they only have an assault weapons ban.

Why aren't they suing the property owner that created easy access to the rooftop and the city that allowed it? The building owner created a sniper's nest with the city's help.