Jump to content

mab22

Members
  • Posts

    4,467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mab22

  1. It appears there is a lot of paperwork being filed and updated in the court record the last few days. 
     

    from the case page. 
    https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL025015J&ocl=IL025015J,2023MR4,IL025015JL2023MR4D9

     

    Date Entry Judge
    Entered Under: ACCURACY FIREARMS LLC ET AL
    03/27/2024  CLERK NOTE: Received telephone call from Appellate Court stating Volume 2 cannot be accepted based on how was submitted (pages broken out into smaller attachments). Clerk to contact Goodins to assist with breaking down the case into more volumes. Appellate Court to reject the Volume 2 filings and disregard the previous Volumes 1 & 3 there were previously submitted and accepted.
    Copy of Rejections Confirmations on file.
    Clerk resubmitted Common Law of Record in 4 volumes.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Volume 1 of 4 Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Volume 2 of 4 Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Volume 3 of 4 Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Volume 4 of 4 Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    UNASSIGNED
    03/26/2024  CLERK NOTE: Part of filings for Volume 2 submission failed. Clerk broke down those pages into smaller groups of pages and resubmitted for e-filing to Appellate Court. Clerk telephoned Appellate Court informing of the e-filing submission errors and process of breaking down into attachments consisting of smaller amounts of pages to go through e-filing.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 2501-2800 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 2801-3200 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 6301-6700 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 6701-7200 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Letter (stating briefing due dates) filed by the Appellate Court.
    UNASSIGNED
    03/25/2024  Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 1-2200 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 2201-2500 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 3201-4000 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 4001-4800 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 4801-5600 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 5601-6300 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 7201-7500 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 7501-7801 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 7802-8000 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted for Volume 2 pages 8001-8482 Email from Appellate Court on file.
    UNASSIGNED
    03/22/2024  The record has been prepared and certified through Imaging for transmission to the Appellate Court, Appeal e-filed into Appellate Case# 5-24-0112.
    Clerk Note: No Transcripts received for filing with Appeal.
    UNASSIGNED
    03/22/2024  Record of Appeal filed with the 5th District Appellate Court.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Volume 1 Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Volume 3 Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Impounded Record Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Report of Proceedings Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    Copy of Filing Submitted & Filing Accepted For Exhibits Confirmation Email from Appellate Court on file.
    CLERK NOTE: E-filing Submission failed for submitting Volume 2. Clerk broke down Volume 2 into multiple filings and submitted to Appellate Court on 325/24.
  2. On 3/26/2024 at 4:47 PM, Euler said:


    Long answer:
    By the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the government has 30 days to file an intent to appeal, which is not an appeal itself. 30 days from March 8 (the date of the decision) is April 7, which is a Sunday, so the real deadline is April 5. The government can also ask for an extension to file notice up to another 30 days. Filing the notice to appeal gives it another 60 days to file the actual appeal, although the government can ask for an extension of that up to 180 days. That may seem like a pretty slow process, but this case has been going since September 2020.

    Short answer:
    The government is going to have to file something by April 5 if it intends to do anything. "Something" won't necessarily be the appeal itself.

    Meanwhile in my inbox today:

    Um, no. The federal district court didn't say anything about a FOID. It ruled on part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    It might have legal implications on the FOID, but we actually need to go down that road to go down that road.

    Correct me if I am wrong,

    This ruling "applies to the individual", not everyone is what I hear. I don't know that we can even go to a federal court and point to or cite this case.

    I would bet our challenge gets thrown out as "we are citizens, they are not, go pound sand plebs!"
    We also need to see if the state appeals and what the result of the appeal is, even then I would put money on your a citizen they are not, you loose go ______ !

    I F  A N Y T H I N G were to be challenged I would suspect that it would have to be FOID and the CCL, and PICA and the whole system they have in place. I would hope the groups would challenge EVERYTHING and not just FOID.

     

    Either way don't get your hopes up folks, history has shown us the level of corruption we live with.

     

     

     

  3. On 3/20/2024 at 3:16 PM, Euler said:

     

    If it's not appealed, then it's not binding for other cases. It can be advisory.

     

    If the government appeals it to CA7 and loses, then it's binding for everybody in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It it's appealed to the US Supreme Court, then it's binding for the whole country. Would they risk the law for one more conviction? I suspect they wouldn't, but I'm not the one who decides.

    This administration isn’t exactly “the sharp tool” in the shed, yes I said sharp, not sharpest.

  4. On 3/18/2024 at 7:40 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

    Any container that is nonflammable is considered fire resistant, metal will burn at some point but is clearly fire resistant to all but Illinois Supreme Court Judges.

    Just keep a sheet of aluminum foil and wrap your firearm in it, aluminum ABSOLUTELY will not burn.  

     

    Wrapping in foil won't work.

    Besides what happens when aluminum reaches 4200F + degrees?

     

    Quote

    when locked, is incapable of being opened without the key, keypad, combination, or other unlocking mechanism

    when locked, is incapable of being opened without the key, keypad, combination, or other unlocking mechanism

  5. On 3/17/2024 at 11:28 PM, cnwfan3 said:

     

    I'm pretty sure they won't look at it that way.  As mab22 pointed out, they are making it impossible to comply with the law.

    I would equate it to only being able to own “plasma rifles, which have a range of 35 watts or less.” 

    I don’t want to give the ID 10 T’s any help, so I won’t point out too much. 

  6.  

     

    Quote

    Bill Title: Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that if a concealed carry licensee leaves his or her vehicle unattended, he or she shall store the firearm out of plain view in a safe or other secure container which, when locked, is incapable of being opened without the key, keypad, combination, or other unlocking mechanism and is capable of preventing an unauthorized person from obtaining access to and possession of the weapon contained therein and shall be fire, impact, and tamper resistant.

     

    There is no way comply with the requirements.

     

  7. I like the way it's thrown back in the states face.

     

    Quote

    “The Court is aware that Supreme Court Rule … allows broad use of video conference or telephone at an evidentiary hearing or trial ‘for good cause shown and upon appropriate safeguards’ or even as of right,” Forest wrote. “However, the availability of remote proceedings does not bolster the State’s argument. The State could also participate in Madison County using the same remote means.” 

     

    image.jpeg.28e627845fb1eb828452717449657b1d.jpeg

  8. Thank you for explaining that, I have NO faith in anything happening in Illinoistan, it's too corrupt.

     

    image.gif.a83618ade306b0c38577ae08ff62d5aa.gif

    On 3/11/2024 at 1:42 PM, MrTriple said:

    That occurred to me as well, but the problem with this strategy is when the State Supreme Court issues a ruling (like they did in Brown) that completely dodges the 2nd Amendment question in favor of some other dumb legal argument, which effectively renders that case worthless on appeal to the Supreme Court, who probably won't touch it unless it's a straightforward 2nd Amendment case that actually attempts to delve into the merits (even if the merits arguments themselves are faulty).

     

  9. On 3/12/2024 at 9:02 PM, mauserme said:

    References to the FOID Act have permeated a lot of Illinois law.  If the Act is repealed, conforming changes have to be made to all the other law that it touches.  So this part that you quoted, for example, removes the requirement for a retiring officer to first have a FOID Card before purchasing their service weapon.  This makes sense as they can't require a card that no longer exists.

     

    (20 ILCS 805/805-538)
    Sec. 805-538. Retiring officer; purchase of service
    firearm and police badge. The Director of Natural Resources
    shall establish a program to allow a Conservation Police
    Officer who is honorably retiring in good standing to purchase
    either one or both of the following: (1) any Department of
    Natural Resources police badge previously issued to that
    officer; or (2) if the officer has a currently valid Firearm
    Owner's Identification Card
    , the service firearm issued or
    previously issued to the officer by the Department of Natural
    Resources. The cost of the firearm shall be the replacement
    value of the firearm and not the firearm's fair market value.
    (Source: P.A. 100-931, eff. 8-17-18.)

     

     


    I don’t trust them!
    When they are done with it, what will happen is everyone will be exempt from the FOID except regular citizens. 
    I’ll believe if signed and removed from all citizens as a requirement, but until then…. It’s another Lucy holding the football to me.


     

  10. Have you read through this HB4327?

    We are being played on this one!

    It's removing restrictions from the State Police, and possibly a few other groups, requiring them to have a FOID cards!

    WHY?

    Probably because of a couple of current law suits, some of which involve the 14th amendment and equal protection.

    Maybe people have been following the Devore cases.

    And WHY would Representative Kevin Schmidt (R), 114th District be a sponsor of this?

     

    At the end of the post they strike out the FOID act in something relation to non-citizens.

     

    Some Examples -

    Bottom of page 30 of this PDF, the strike through of item 6..

    https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/103/HB/PDF/10300HB4327lv.pdf

     

    This is all stricken, or removed from the law.

     

    Law enforcement agencies should provide
    training on the Firearm Owner's Identification Card Act,
    including seeking relief from the Illinois State Police
    under Section 10 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card

    Act and a FOID card being a continued condition of
    employment under Section 7.2 of the Uniform Peace
    Officers' Disciplinary Act.

    (Source: P.A. 102-352, eff. 6-1-22; 103-154, eff. 6-30-23.)

     

     

    Page 31 has another entry striking a FOID requirement. I bolded it to bring it out.

     

    (20 ILCS 805/805-538)
    Sec. 805-538. Retiring officer; purchase of service
    firearm and police badge. The Director of Natural Resources
    shall establish a program to allow a Conservation Police
    Officer who is honorably retiring in good standing to purchase
    either one or both of the following: (1) any Department of
    Natural Resources police badge previously issued to that
    officer; or (2) if the officer has a currently valid Firearm
    Owner's Identification Card
    , the service firearm issued or
    previously issued to the officer by the Department of Natural
    Resources. The cost of the firearm shall be the replacement
    value of the firearm and not the firearm's fair market value.
    (Source: P.A. 100-931, eff. 8-17-18.)

     

    And another one on page 32.

     

    Sec. 2505-306. Retiring investigators; purchase of service
    firearm and badge. The Director shall establish a program to
    allow a Department investigator who is honorably retiring in
    good standing to purchase either one or both of the following:
    (1) any badge previously issued to the investigator by the
    Department; or (2) if the investigator has a currently valid
    Firearm Owner's Identification Card
    ,
    the service firearm
    issued or previously issued to the investigator by the
    Department. The cost of the firearm shall be the replacement
    value of the firearm and not the firearm's fair market value.
    (Source: P.A. 102-719, eff. 5-6-22.)

     

     

    Page 21

    So illegals can make purchases or get FOIDS!?

     

    Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
    limit the ability of a law enforcement agency or law
    enforcement official to request evidence of citizenship or
    immigration status pursuant to the Firearm Owners
    Identification Card Act, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act
    ,
    Article 24 of the Criminal Code of 2012, or 18 United States
    Code Sections 921 through 931.

     

     

     

     

    On 3/12/2024 at 4:12 PM, mauserme said:

    We always need to find the right balance this time of year, between covering the bills that need to be covered, avoiding burning folks out asking for too many slips, and anticipating the games they play.  When we have a list of dozens of bills in our alerts, for example, we often see a drop off in the number of slips filed toward the end of the list.  

     

    Also, in addition to HB4327 Firearm Owners ID Act - Repeal, HB1134 Firearm Owners ID Act - Repeal  was assigned to the same Judiciary - Criminal committee this afternoon. I expect it may be posted to a hearing next week and, eventually, a bunch of bills to be moved to subcommittee leaving the few that we hopefully predicted correctly.  We want to make the best use of people's time so we don't always include bills that might make some sense later in the process.

     

     

    On 3/12/2024 at 4:18 PM, Jeffrey said:

    The ratio of pro versus opponent is drastic and disgusting.

     

  11. On 3/12/2024 at 9:06 AM, Upholder said:

     

    His wife was former Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme court.......   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_M._Burke

    It's a somewhat sarcastic question.

    So she WAS, not IS, the Chief Justice, don't we have independent judges, this whole system is lawless and corrupt, all the way to the supreme court.

    Democrats buying each other off, and we don't want to what they do to each other.

    If it were Republican's we would never hear the end of it, the media would be frothing at the mouth and slobbering all over!

    If your a Democrat "it's OKAY WHEN WE DO IT!"

    Maybe we should request two separate court systems, Democrat and OTHER!

     

  12. On 3/12/2024 at 5:17 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

    HOW SAD IS THIS!

     

    Former Ald. Ed Burke, convicted late last year of racketeering, bribery and attempted extortion, has been allowed to keep his law license after a majority of the state Supreme Court recused themselves from taking up the issue, a court spokesperson confirmed Monday.

    And why would the majority recuse themselves? Party affiliation? Money received they can't pay back?  They don't want to upset "Mr. Burke & associates",  who might tell them what a nice court room them they?

    It's all intriguing....

  13. On 3/8/2024 at 8:02 PM, crufflesmuth said:

    3239 ..

     

    Where to start? 

     

    Discrimination: public safety can mean many things, dependent on which zip code you hail from. Police officers and departments would 

    have an endless cash cow with this. They can charge processing fees. Expedited fees. In any amount too.

     

    Privacy: police will know make, caliber, action, brand, cost and type of firearm with this transfer permit. Which is allegedly for nothing

    else but "verifying" identity. Do not worry though. The department and officer will have record and access to that - even after the

    10 day window expires. Probably public record too.

     

    There already are issues with Illinois State Police isssuing FOID cards. People can have a conversation whether the FOID can or should exist.

    What most people can agree on: the FOID is a fairly decent system, despite the obvious funding and lack of expediency. 

     

    Suburban and city police departments will absolutely turn this into a cash cow. It would absolutely function like NYPD License Division:

    slow, spiteful and capricious.

     

    The best part: this was written and introduced by a Mom's Demand Action member who defined anti-violence measures as having a 

    gun safe.

     

    This does achieve anti-violence goals of Mom's Demand Action: not many lawful people will be able to afford personal defense 

    weapons or enjoy building collections. 

     

    Way to go Kendall County! They must swoon every time the Kane County Sheriff shows up!

     

    OR
    Maybe a Clear and Present Danger is filed against you after/while you "apply", without you knowing about it, for what ever reason they feel like.

     

×
×
  • Create New...