Jump to content

Tvandermyde

Members
  • Posts

    6,839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    tvandermyd@aol.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Yorkville, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

28,376 profile views

Tvandermyde's Achievements

Member

Member (24/24)

  1. here is my review of Range V Lombardo which was argued by the same attoerney that argued the Government's case in Atkinson. Same arguments but the judges bought them contrary to what the 7th circuit was saying at orals. some language is in here
  2. we filed our response to their motion to dismiss a bit ago and I forgot to post it here. Vandermyde Mot to File Oversized Response to MTD - filed 11-1-22.pdf
  3. (Caution, language) here is my second part of my review of the government's side of Atkinson
  4. yea its Segale -- my least favorite lawyer for 2A issues. 1. I don't think he's gotten better at his oral arguments 2. One of the judges said neither side was helpful in the briefs -- referring to history necessary under the New York standard which tells me he hasn't gotten any better at those either. 3. they most likely will remand and he'll win this because of New York and these judges following New York along with the Government's poor work and trying to bootstrap old "retired" case law. Kyle rittenhouse could argue this case and win. here are my thoughts on the government's part of the arguments
  5. this was well worth the listen. Despite my least favorite lawyer not improving his skills in articulation, these judges are freaking out and the super charged right was just efffing golden. The DoJ is either afraid to adjust their position and take the helping hand that was being offered to them or to scared. My bet is it gets remanded, but the point should have been followed up on that as the judge said, if there is not going to be anything new, then it is a matter of law and no remand is necessary I caught Wood and Scutter being two of the judges didn't get the third name if someone caught that. but unlike what CA and a MA are doing, these three judges clearly have read New York, see the mandate and implications of New York and I would have no problem arguing any number of cases or issues in front of them -- especially if this is the level of competence, we are going to see from the DoJ .
  6. for years, Chicago tried the same theory about sales of handguns to their residents. it failed.
  7. First off I'm not a fan of rocky Mountain gun owners and their founder. Second, I think there is a complete missed opportunity I was working on that goes tot he right to repair. If you can own a firearm, then you have the right to maintain it in good safe working order. that would get us tot he parts and frames/recievers type issue. They also missed citing Ezell which first tipped the issue of they can go somewhere else. I would have also used quotes from the city council members about how people could go else where. here is a memo I was working on about the issues to get SAF interested but they didn't want to get involved I'm told by a lawyer that asked and pitched it to them. Naperville has banned the commercial sale of so called assault rifles. This is done by a list of specific firearms as well as a single feature test. Under the definitions they also include “parts or combination of parts” as well as frames or receivers. XXX has indicated they feel a case against Naperville would get caught up in the Cook County/ Wilson case as some of the same issues are being litigated, as it would be in the same federal district. I see this a bit differently as we can cast this case in a different light building off of Illinois Retail Firearms Assn v Chicago. There the 7th district found the ban on gun shops was unconstitutional. The Court said: “The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many long-standing restrictions on who may acquire firearms (for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (for example, licensing requirements for commercial sales). But Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve. For the specific reasons explained later in this opinion, the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.” It appears the Circuit court decision has been cited over a dozen times in other cases from other gun shop litigation in Chicago to the right to acquire case in Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and explosives. While the Cook County case takes on the personal ownership and possession issue, this case has a couple of other facets that I don’t think have been fully explored, such as the right to repair. If people have the right to keep and bear arms, and there is the right to acquire a firearm, then there must be a corresponding right to repair, maintain or improve that firearm through the acquisition of parts and components, up to and including the assembly of one’s own firearm. Additionally, Naperville takes the position that there are other gun shops in the Chicagoland area where people can buy these firearms. Much like the case Chicago made about banning firing ranges in Ezell I: “The judge thought it significant that none of the individual plaintiffs had “testif[ied] that s/he was unable to travel outside of the [c]ity's borders to obtain the one-hour range training and all three have shown that they are capable of doing so and have done so in the past .” The court held that although the Ordinance may force the plaintiffs to travel longer distances to use a firing range, this was a “quantifiable expense that can be easily calculated as damages.” This reasoning assumes that the harm to a constitutional right is measured by the extent to which it can be exercised in another jurisdiction. That's a profoundly mistaken assumption. In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ “ Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76–77, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939)). The same principle applies here. It's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a freespeech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.” Naperville wanted to make a political statement and act as if they were doing something in light of the Highland Park shooting. They have been in contact with over a dozen other municipalities and a lot of eyes are focused on Naperville and what happens here. There is a growing fear that this will catch on as the City of Highland Park’s lawyer feels they have found a loophole in the state preemption law for those towns that did not pass a ban in 2013 – banning sales. If left unchecked gun owners across the region could find themselves with limited ability to acquire any number of types of firearms or parts. Additionally this gives us the ability to continue to push Heller’s in common use and the issue of modern firearms. “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Issues presented: • Sale of modern firearms/right to acquire • No sales to FFLs • No sales outside of Illinois • Prohibition on the right to repair personal firearms – not allowed to obtain necessary “assault rifle” parts. • Prohibition on gun smithing of these firearms – not allowed to install “assault rifle” parts or components. • Prohibition on building one’s own firearm – not allowed to obtain “assault rifle” receivers or parts
  8. The village has a revamped ordinance. It strictly deals with the sale of semi-automatic rifles. Not shotguns, not handguns not magazines, but there is some debate about magazines the way the component's part is worded. Law Weapons will have a rally at their shop this saturday the City council meets on Tuesday night for the reading, debate and possible passage of the ban. The League of woman voters and Moms have been mad since we out numbered them last month and they are working email chains to get people there at 5 to block progun people from being able to get in. they are also hoping to get everyone to sign up to speak to block us by chewing up the time. If you can make please come out to the village meeting Tuesday, we hear that they are communicating with other towns in hopes to pass a rash of similar ordinances quickly to prevent us from rallying opposition. sign up to speak if you are able to. todd
  9. I believe so. what they don't think of at the state level they can let the locals have a field day as they meet 12 months a year
  10. couple of things I noticed watching the video. 1. My letter to the Mayor seems to have gotten his attention about litigation and its costs. 2. they are going to come after preemption in either veto session or the next session. They will want to bleed us on a 100 battle fronts Which means our fights in the courts will become even more critical
  11. The GSL facial challenge to the FOID is on going. the State via the AG just hired famed fabricator/historian Saul cornell to justify the FOID as constitutional. he filed an 82 page document about his historical analysis on the subject. Cornell-Report-Final-2022-Update-Final.pdf
  12. Dear Mayor Craig, I'm writing you about the proposed ban on the sale of semi-auto firearm and magazines in Hanover Park. Allow me to introduce myself I'm the former NRA contract lobbyist for Illinois, which I did for over 25 years. Aside from lobbying the General Assembly, my job also included vetting and prepping cases for litigation. You may have heard or seen some of my work with the Shepard case that found Illinois ban on carrying a handgun for self-defense as unconstitutional. Recently the 2nd Appellate district, which Hanover Park is a part of found the magazine ban in Deerfield violated the state preemption law. Another of my cases, Illinois Assn of Firearms Retailers v Chicago found their (Chicago's) ban on gun shops unconstitutional as the 'right to acquire a firearm' was part of the Second Amendment. Specifically, they said: “City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment. This right must also include the right to acquire a firearm, although that acquisition right is far from absolute: there are many longstanding restrictions on who may acquire firearms for examples, felons and the mentally ill have long been banned) and there are many restrictions on the sales of arms (for example, licensing requirements for commercial sales).” Ill. a**'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago Based upon the case law, and the recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, any attempt by Hanover Park to ban the sale of commonly used firearms will most likely be met with litigation. while we are aware that some law firms are offering pro-bono representation, it would behoove the village to consider that all of their work was prior to New York being decided, they lost the issue of magazine bans in Deerfield prior to New York and despite free legal work the Village would still be on the hook for the legal fees of plaintiffs once they prevail. I would point out that post New York, the test for gun control laws and ordinances is: "we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”" Nothing in our Nation's history supports the banning of the sale of commonly used firearms. And while some may be claiming some sort of loophole in the State's preemption clause, I would again urge you to consider the ruling in Ill. a**'n of Firearms Retailers v. City of Chicago, and then ask yourself if you think the Village can overcome the precedent and test from New York. Recently the village of Batavia found they were in fact preempted by State law and declined to pursue the same subject matter. I would be happy to discuss this further with you. or your village counsel. Todd Vandermyde Yorkville, IL
  13. the issue is justices will arrive at a conclusion that does NOT involve a constitutional question if they can. Wilson was remanded due to procedural issues and avoided the 2A question. They shy away from constitutional rulings where they can becuase of the downstream effect the precedent could have
  14. you have no idea the things I want to say in committee, it has crossed my mind to show up with a box of bananas and when they ask what they are for, if you want to act like a banana republic I just thought you should look the part
×
×
  • Create New...