Flynn

All I can say is WOW, I never expected an "Illinois" court to rule so strongly (even though it's the correct ruling) I fully expect the state to scramble to appeal, but I really hope as they appeal up the ladder the upper courts take notice of the wording in this case and even if reluctant finally accept Heller/Bruen.

C'mon Man! They anti-gun judges are literaly making stuff up now, not only are they interest balancing that is moot, but now they are coining new 'scary' spinwords like "particularly dangerous" to justify bans! They honestly should be ashamed of themselves! Really they should be ashamed of themselves!

Their own anti-gun emotions and feelings said so...

Too many bone headed judges that still can't get it through to their pea brain that the 2nd is a RIGHT and shall be treated as a RIGHT, even after being told twice by the Supreme Court!

That is in interesting debate as they would in theory only have to ban those items from police and the specials when they were not on duty to kick out current equal protection claims aka leave your duty guns/mags at work. I would argue at the end of the day that police should not have any 'extra' 2nd rights in regards to carrying and weapons even on duty except in limited highly sensative places like courts and prisons, but that is a fight for another court in the future.

If it goes down like that video predicts that is some next level trolling!

Yep, I will forever support a court system that fast tracks Constitutionaly protected rights challenges (to weeks/months not years) and allows for more 1983 lawsuits against those that infringe upon anothers rights, but sadly I doubt I will see either!

I honestly believe there are more mature lawsuits in other states that will get to the SCOTUS first, the variable is going to be how soon it takes the SCOTUS to actually hear one.

If you ever need proof that having a college degree or even a law license doesn't make someone smart, just read these transcripts!

They literally have nothing else to argue so they will just keep repeating interest balancing over and over again, it's sad and comical all in one! But, I say let them keep arguing it, the more time they spend arguing that the less time they have to find an analog law application and argue that.

In my personal experience very few police actually know more than you average person on the street in regards to the law, many are very well versed on some topics like vehicle enforcement and parking violations (or the topic of an ordiance that is being pushed that month from above) but beyond that many know very little about the law overall, at least from my interactions.

I'm guessing the number of people (same email) and it being a video (likely no actual email body content) might have triggered the spam setting, especially if this varies from your normal use.

100% agree, that is why I brought it up, it's certainly something that should be challenged.

Dislike the un-American and un-Constitutional legislators and governor more 🤣

Although the FOID can't be revoked, I suspect it's still lawful pn a case by case basis for the judge to set no firearm possession as a condition of bail release? If so that moots the relief in most cases even if they are able to maintain their FOID card.

It's horribly flawed legal logic especially for a judge as the cases are arguing different things under different arguments. IMO these judges know how they are going to have to rule to not be overturned, so they are intentionally kickind the can down the road hoping for a miracle that allows them an out.

Well I guess we know how he feels about the slaves being free and women voting since they were after-after-afterthoughts and clearly not imporatant at all.

It should be applied to red flag laws yes, and it should also be applied immediately and retroactively to all that were wrongfully denied with written notice they were wronged! It should also be applied to the carry laws that is still very much a permission slip even if you are not prohibited. Watch, Illinois now try to say that the crime was maybe a prohibited crime even if the crime they were ultimently convicted of wasn't, as they did previously in 👇

LOL, so they went full retard and are saying state laws are entirely optional? How does that not smack the equal protection clause in the face as they are basically saying enforcement and prosecution of a state law is now entirely dependent upon zipcode and the whim of prosecutors? I say take this filing over to the other cases challenging it on equal protection grounds as they literally are shooting themselves in their own feet with these mental gymnastics!

We can only move as fast as the courts move. The good thing is that as a general rule the Supreme Court is very reluctant to overturn it's own precedent, especially wihting a short period of time, and when it comes to enumerated rights, the Supreme Court has generally expanded those rights when it does overturn itself. As an already clearly divided nation with a division growing, I honeslty fear a Supreme Court overturning Heller/Bruen.

No doubt the liberal leaning courts will continue to ignore Heller/Bruen, their contempt for Heller is primarily what brought us Bruen, and they still refuse to accept Heller and now Bruen. All we can do is take it up the ladder and have the superior courts continue to slap the inferior courts around and tell them they are wrong until they 'get it'

They are not mutally exclusive uses, just sayin' Putting that aside, it begs the question, why are police, ex-police, prison guards and the like still allowed to have them if they are only for war?

I have a funny feeling the already annoyed judge is not going to be amused in the least, just a guess 🤣

In a ideal world, under Heller/Bruen the judge would issue as summary judgement entirely for us after reading those.

I would argue that is not for anyone but the court to decide and I would not entertain any request to offer up examples as I personally don't believe any arm falls into either category and outside the plain text of the 2nd. I have said multiple times, I don't agree with the Miller's "in common use" test nor Heller's "dangerous and unusual" test, and although the case laws test we are currently bound by, I believe they are flawed test as when one looks at the historical record (like we are now) our founding fathers appear to have already clearly defined what the 2nd covers in the plain text of the 2nd, that being (all) arms, as there is essentially no record of them banning this or that arm, the bans on arms came much later. So the test should simply be "Is it an arm, if so it's protected"