Jump to content

Tvandermyde

Members
  • Posts

    6,831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Yorkville, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

28,189 profile views

Tvandermyde's Achievements

Member

Member (24/24)

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. The talk is heating up about the delayed special session on abortion now being used to talk about guns and getting a mag ban, semi-auto ban and more passed. HB-5522 and SB2510 appear to be a couple of vehicles for this. At this point with New York being handed down, while I am inclined to testify and point out some highlights of the egregious points of the bill, I am les inclined to go into great details about its flaws. My belief is if they are going to jam this down our throats, then lets see the most god awful pi$$ poor written garbage they can coble together. It makes it better to fight in court and they can't be running back to session to keep amending the same law intime for the Court to review it. Screw them -- that's all I can get away with saying here. But My reading of New York is none of this passes muster and we just work on flooding them with good well written pleadings based upon sound legal basis with good competent counsel. We are in for the war not just the skirmish.
  9. If they don't have a algorythm filtering out phone manuf and models and such I say lie your asp off they have not answered any of my questions yet BlasTech Industries E-11 blaster rifle Serial# FJB001
  10. Everyone wants the FOID to go away. But what most fail to understand is the best way to see that happen is to build a strong foundation of a legal basis. We have seen the Illinois Supreme court at times do everything they can to avoid a constitutional question around 2A issues when they can. Several previous cases failed becuase courts inserted their own judgement and applied the wrong test, The court has clarified that and given them guidance on how to apply a test. yet there were all kinds of lawyers who just ran to court screaming Heller and Second Amendment and lost cases and for the last 10 years set bad precident.. Now all those are gone and we get to start over. There are several of us looking at how to approach the issue, but it takes time money and smart lawyers. Right now the Anti-gunners have Saul Cornell working overtime trying to find every 1791 regulation they can to try and put a cork in the dike that is leaking to try and preserve as much as they can. Hense part of the reason I asked Valinda to pull all the amici briefs. We get a new standard of review we will have one chance to make a first impression about it. And we better get our arguments right, in front of the right court with the best fact pattern we can. I want the FOID card gone more than anyone. But there are a lot of other things I want to see gone as well. And in my book, we need to do this right not sloppy
  11. The idea of individuals being able to fight back against a tyrannical government is not that far fetched at all. The founders feared a standing army and sought to have civilian control over it. They had just gotten done fighting the world's superpower. and in a fledgling country were very skeptical of concentrated power. Hence we have 3 branches of government with a bi-camel legislature. Its not ill conceived that a standing army that decides to take over like some ghunta in a banana republic -- becomes the government. Or that a government who had other motives would turn that standing army against the people. Its not complicated or difficult to comprehend. Not to mention all their fears of centralized government.
  12. I asked Valinda to do this as we look to applying this ruling to Illinois.
  13. G-PAC says Illinois is fine and nothing will change, me thinks they read a different opinion than I did
  14. a bunch of courts ignored Heller and this was a rebuke to them. they do so at their own peril this time
×
×
  • Create New...