Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Texasgrillchef

  1. Wondering how they will do that. That have to keep it historical in context with the times of 1791 for the 2A. And 1868 for the 14th. He is going to be hard pressed to do that without sounding racist. Until the AWB came along. There no class of firearms banned by our government. The had sensitive places maybe, such as whole towns. But let’s keep in mind that those whole towns were NOT in any area that was officially a state at the time, and were only in Territories of the USA. Big difference, and even Thomas has said so. It’s one of the rains Thomas wrote the Bruen opinion like he did, and the other 5 justices voted with him on TTH being limited in Scope to 1791 and 1868. They knew very little gun laws existed at the time, and those that were, were very limited in scope. Also people didn’t challenge the constitutionality of a law to the same level we do today as well. They think they have an argument but they don’t.
  2. One option is go to trial, and let the jury find her guilty. Then she can appeal. As long as the appeals court and IL Supreme Court uphold the conviction then she can take it to SCOTUS. However…. IL SC could still vacate and remand. It is a mess for sure. At this point the DA should request dismissal, and the court should grant. This won’t be settled with Brown. Someone needs to file a cival suit. The ILSC refuses to rule one way or the other on the FOID.
  3. Part of the problem, is that the state won’t give up and drop the charges against brown. They don’t want the case dismissed. In once instance their the ones that appealed one decision. The case would end and be over if the state dropped the charges. Their failure to do so is leaving the district court in a tough place The district court refuses to convict. The state AG refuses to drop the charges. I think there are only two ways for this (FOID act) someone to file a cival lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the FOID act. Or for the court to find Brown guilty and let brown appeal. So that the higher courts either have to uphold the conviction, or reverse based on constitutionality, thus backing the IL Supreme Court into a corner making them uphold the conviction or reverse it. The way it’s going now. The Supreme Court keeps remanding. One other thing is certain. Because this is an election year, they don’t want to rule on the constitutionality of the FOID act, or provide a means for it to go to SCOTUS. I am actually surprised the GOA or FPC or NRA hasn’t stepped up to support a lawsuit to overturn the FOID.
  4. Well all good thoughts and logic but let’s take a step back here and look at a somewhat prior case. Wrenn v D.C. in which that lower court held in favor of wrenn against D.C. basically wha the Bruen decision did for carry outside the home. D.C. was about to file a petition for cert with SCOTUS, but was pressured by states like NY and California not to purse it as to force the issue on the other May Issue states at the time. NY currently is the only state to give SCOTUS a big FU. With. The Gov. Calling the legislature back to pass a new law. No other state has done that yet. Hawaii Just has no started issuing permits yet. Soon maybe, just not yet. Ca is all dependent on where your at. That being said though…. The courts in certain areas are granting extension of time to prolong the case. One strange exception is an Obama appointed judge in Colorado issuing a TRO. Bianchi v Frosh though is being set for oral argument but not at district court level. The 3 judge panel wants to rule on this one for some reason. Then again too… one has to consider the courts they are in, and who the judges are at what levels, and what procedures are available to be followed. When Judge St Bonitez rules the same way… Bonta can still appeal back to the 3 judge panel. Giving the 3 judge panel an additional opportunity to find another chance to reverse the district courts opinion. 9th circuit En Banc will deny En Banc. Then a petition for cert with SCOTUS will be filed. SCOTUS is aware that there are over 8 different AWB cases still pending. So they will either hold Miller, or they will Grant. Which AWB will be the best to grant cert on is all a matter of opinion. Even though those who are fighting to keep the AWB know they will eventually LOSE, they still want to delay that outcome as much as possible, and cost us as many dollars as possible, even though they will have to pay it in the end. They aren’t playing to minimize damage… they are playing an ALL or NOTHING game. They are all in, playing for all the marbles. This was evident in NY. They could have MOOTED the case, like they did with NYC in 2020. They could have put the new law they have now back in 2021. They didn’t. They decided to wait till after to see what and how they could change to meet the new decision. They know the new Bruen or Hochul case if not both will end back up in front of SCOTUS. They know they will loose though too. However… one big thing that is driving all of the politicians, because this year is an election year. They have to show they are trying to fight, even if they loose later.
  5. The appeals court as well as the state are using whatever delaying tactics they can to delay the inevitable. Simple as that. We will eventually win. But they will delay for as long as possible.
  6. Pushed to December for oral argument intentionally by the appeals court to delay things.
  7. Yes, he will rule the same way. If you read his original opinion closely he issued the opinion from two points of view. From the TTH single step approach and from the two step approach. He will of course, update his opinion to reflect more closely with the Bruen opinion. Making reference to multiple sections of Bruen, and to those of Heller and McDonald that Bruen pointed out. He will also make more mention and use of the actual lack of history or tradition for massacre firearm bans. The real trick, is will it have multiple hearings again, including discovery. Or will he just issue an opinion after both side issue their briefs and opposition briefs. However, I also think that the plaintiffs Miller, will ask And request a TRO &/or injunction which after the required hearings he will grant. This time they won’t be stayed. Suffice it to say, it all starts over from the beggining. Yet the outcome should be the same. What will also be interesting is WHICH AWB case will make it back to the Supreme Court first, and and if one will make it there before the end of the year. Sadly I don’t think one will make it back to SCOTUS before the end of this year, other then a shadow emergency docket for a TRO/Injunction. Even Bianchi v Frosh, have their hearings delayed and set for argument in December. An intentional delay by the appeals court.
  8. If you keep track of most of the firearms cases covering most all the topics across all districts and circuits. Reading BOTH sides of the case for and against motions for and oppositions. Covering all topics from AWB’s, Mag cap bans, ammo, ghost guns, carry, gun permitting etc… You will notice, that every government entity being sued, is asking for additional time in one form or another to do more historical Analysis. To combat the Bruen/Heller one step approach. They are scrambling. In at least one case. An AWB ban out of the Town of Superior Co. The federal district judge, an Obama appointee, yesterday Friday July 22nd, issued a TRO (Temp Restraining Order) against the town of Superior. The judge clearing stating that their was no TTH to uphold the law. This is the first AWB to have a positive step in the right direction, other then the one out of Maryland. Bianchi v Frosh which was GVR’d by SCOTUS. Now the case out of Superior CO, has an Injunction hearing coming up on I believe August 5th. That will put another nail in the AWB coffin. Assuming of course that Town of Superior can’t come up with valid TTH. Which obviously they can’t. It will take some time but the gun control laws will start falling quickly. The one’s that have me the most concerned of not making much progress though. Are the challenge to the NFA, the GCA of 1968. And the 1986 machine gun act. We should be able to make some dents in the NFA, but I doubt we will enjoin the entire Act. Same goes with the GCA of 1968 or 1986.
  9. I would like to think that too… While most are way to old to ever make it to a higher level in the federal court system. Some are not. They don’t want to kill their chances of being appointed to another possible office by their liberal democrats. Plus I am sure they are getting a lot of pressure to do what they can to hold things down as much as they can. I don’t see them giving up the ghost yet. Just like NY and some in Hawaii are fighting back as much as they can and not call it a “day”
  10. Wondering how long it will take them to actually start moving on this case. The 9th circuit got two cases vacated and remanded back to them from SCOTUS. This one and young v Hawaii. Even the other two courts with cases vacated and remanded haven’t had any movement yet. I suspect the appropriate judges are looking for ways to get their original decision to stand in light of the Bruen case. Looking for ways that under the new way to review the laws that they can still uphold the laws as being consitutional. After reading many of the other briefs on many other similar cases in many other circuits. Many are trying to postpone to give them time to do research to discover history and tradition that they can use to uphold the laws. Sadly they won’t find them, I think they know that. But want to postpone the inevitable. Just like the democrats on the federal level are pushing the AWB with Mag Cap ban already. Even though it won’t stand up to SCOTUS. Sadly this is an election year, and it’s all about showboating. They want to show that they tried. interestingly enough, it’s funny they dropped the abortion bill to force states to allow abortions. But now are attempting to do a AWB. Go figure
  11. What happens in several other cases over AWB’s will have impact on this case far sooner. The biggest one is Bianchi v Frosh which was GVR’d at the SCOTUS level to Maryland and the 3rd circuit. Along with Miller v Bonta and Rupp V Bonta. We will probably get some word on Miller v Bonta long before the other two. Seems like the FPC is trying to rush through that one while Bonta is attempting to slow it down. We shall see though. None the less though… those cases will in some degree have an impact or influence the rest of the AWB lawsuits nationwide. If one of them makes it back to SCOTUS. Especially Bianchi v Frosh. It won’t make SCOTUS very happy. Which actually would be the best case scenario. They won’t be able to GVR it again without issuing a mandate along with it. There are many out there that are thinking now with Bruen things will start dropping like dominoes. Eventually they are… just don’t expect it to be soon or a fast process. Juat imagine watching dominoes fall in slow motion video. Lol
  12. I think at this point. Most of the police and prosecutors are being very careful on who they charge under the FOID act of various possession of firearms. Especially in the home. Even more especially after the Bruen case. Sure they will absolutely charge you if your flagrantly breaking the FOID act law, or your a criminal with more firearms charges that can be filed. But anything that is borderline, I think they are being a little extra cautious right now. Knowing that some with resources will gladly challenge it to the Supreme Court of IL or even the US. In addition. A truly good lawyer, would stay the case pending outcome of several other cases. Especially if your out on “BOND” The best thing though, is that everyone living in a household with firearms in the house that is old enough to get a FOID card, should get one. It’s the CYA rule. Even though I live in a constitutional Carry state, my wife and I have a LTC/CCL. Why? Again the CYA rule. Having a LTC will always provide you with better legal protections then not having one, even in CC states. One misnomer about CC states. In ever CC state, there are places you can go within that state that will require a permit even though your in a CC state. For example Maine. A CC state. Yet you are NOT allowed to carry in city, state, or national parks in Maine without a Maine LTC or one they recognize.
  13. The AHA and WV cases will have impact on the Bump Stock cases as it relates to the control that The ATF has. While neither case has eliminated Chevron Deference. It has in fact severely limited it’s use. It has done so through the use of the Major questions doctrine. Now how does the Major Questions Doctrine affect our bump stock cases? That will take some study of course. It is interesting to see that Both Bump stock cases at SCOTUS level have yet to be denied or granted cert as of yet. Something will happen next term though in October. It is interesting to note, that while WV and AHA have been decided, they also did not make any decisions of granting or denying either bump stock case before the end of this term either. Neither case has raised any question of Constitutionality based on either the 2A or 14a. So while that maybe an issue latter down the road, it isn’t now. As far as the NFA goes, it’s being challenged by Texas now. While one point of the Texas lawsuit is all about Silencers, if they win the the Silencer case. With the way Texas is pursuing that case, it will knock down most of the rest of the NFA as well. Not all of it mind you, but most of it. however the Texas case, doesn’t have anything to do with the ATF rule making process. The issue at hand with Bump Stocks, Pistol Braces and “Ghost guns” is all about the rule making process. Does the ATF have that Authority when congress have left the question vague. Does Chevron deference apply? Does the Major questions doctrine apply? If so to what degree. Some of it was answered in WV and AHA. Some of it was not. None the less. We won’t get those questions answered by SCOTUS until next year. Right now everything is speculation. Educated or otherwise. There is a clear reason though, that none of the lawyers have even brought up to the courts anything to do with the 2A or 14A. We are saving that for another day. Right now the point of these cases is to stop the ATF from being able to make future more arbitrary rules in the future. (as well of course to allow bump stocks again)
  14. It should be u for a briefing schedule with n the next couple of weeks. The big question is if it all go o district first. Or if it all be decided by a 3 judge circuit panel
  15. I can sum it up in four words. It’s an Election Year. They believe that they can put up a fight and show their constituents that they are trying and the problem is with us conservative republicans. They are hoping this will gain more support and mor voted for them. If they can gain full control, then maybe they can do away with SCOTUS, The constitution, and the filibuster. What they don’t realize is that a cival war will happen before any of that will happen
  16. We will get a briefing schedule within the next two weeks.
  17. NY and Ca will get their butts handed back to them in a year or two when the new cases make it back to them, and it won’t take very long this time around either. SCOTUS and Especially Justice Thomas and Justice Alito don’t take to kindly to when a State thumbs their noses at them, and gives them the ole middle finger in defiance. Trust me, when the new cases make it back to them. You will see their wrath. They wanna think things are bad for them now? Just wait…. They will write a new opinion and or give them a mandate that will give them very little leeway. Who knows, maybe they (SCOTUS) is looking for a really good reason to give the nation constitutional carry. This may just be the camel that breaks the back of gun control. Especially if next year we get 3 or 4 more states to join the CC bandwagon and take it from 25 CC States to 28, 29 or even 30. Next year May get us PA, LA, NE, SC, and possibly FL. That would give us 30. The magical number is 34 though, 34 states go CC those 34 could easily push the issue with a constitutional convention and pass another amendment (only takes 34 states to ratify) and poof… we have CC nationwide!
  18. Keep in mind that there are big reasons why certain 2A cases were denied Cert even right before either of the NYSPRA cases, or even between the two cases. Two big reasons…. 1. SCOTUS was itching to slap NY a new one when they mooted the first NYSPRA cases. 2. The other cases if you looked closely all had little issues with them, issues big enough to creat problems if they took that case. 3. NY Sullivan’s law has been on the books for 111 years, it was racist to begin with. Clearly a law that needed knocked down even more so then any of the other May issue states. One thing to note, be prepared. NY and Ca are about to get their a** handed to them again here in the next year or two. SCOTUS and Especially Justice Thomas as well as Alito don’t take to kindly to states that flagrantly thumb their nose up to them and give them the ole middle finger. Trust me, when it makes it back to SCOTUS. You will see their wrath for sure! SCOTUS is no where done with their conservative issuing of opinions. Now they have a clear 6, things will be changing for sure.
  19. Last I checked, they are waiting on comments and briefs to see how much each side thinks the Bruen decision has impact on this case.
  20. Yes, and Heller and one other gentleman are challenging carrying in D.C. on public transit. If that goes to SCOTUS that will control and change what happens in NY on their subway. Even if it doesn’t, it lays groundwork for future cases. Thats the other thing too many don’t realize. Sometimes we need other cases to go first to lay groundwork for other cases. Even when those other cases on the surface don’t seem relevant. Take Bruen for example. Some would have said nothing about that case would help other cases like Mag Bans, or AWB. But in fact it does, and it did, and it will. Bruen laid out groundwork for how future 2A cases should be decided, it removed the previous old 2 step approach and replaced it with strict scrutiny using THT. It strengthens and explains Heller and McDonald in more detail. It even strengthend Heller and McDonald as well. So even though Bruen was mainly about good cause requirements on carry permits. It went far beyond that. It went on to even say we have a right to carry outside our home, we have a right to self defense and protection. It went on to say the 2A core meaning, or one of its core meanings is self defense and self protection. So sometimes we need those other cases to go first to help our case proceed as well. Currently in our courts, State, or Federal district, or Circuit are cases covering almost all aspects of our 2A rights. Those that haven’t been filed yet, will be when other cases are cleared with a win.
  21. Like several mentioned previously. it will require a lawsuit. A lawsuit requires a lawyer willing to take the case, but to win the case requires a lawyer skilled enough to do so. Those lawyers are few and far between. Many are already over booked. One of the best.. Paul Clement, has more cases then he can handle for the most part and isn’t even taking any new cases currently. (I checked) In addition to that, it requires deep pockets, lots and lots of money. The Bruen case, has cost almost a million bucks to prosecute. Duncan v Bonta, has cost almost that as well. It is not cheap to take a case as far as SCOTUS. Thats one reason you see so many groups like the NRA, or The FPC, NYSPRA, SAF, etc take on the big cases. Because we fund groups like that with our membership and our donations, and even purchases. Of course we get additional funding reimbursed when we actually win and the other side has to pay us back. That money in turn is used to fund new cases. Sadly there aren’t very many ultra rich that are willing to spend a million to help protect our rights. If I was Mark Cuban, with a few billion. I’d be willing to spare a million to take on a case. Instead of buying my third home for 50 mil. Hey but that’s me, to each his own. Someone, will eventually file suit and get FOID overturned. Keep in mind too thoug,ph, it took 111 years to overturn New York’s Sullivan law. Also realize, that their are priorities as well for each group. Some of the things that take priority now, are getting AWB’s, Mag Cap Bans, Ghost Guns, 3D printing, Bump Stocks, Triggers, Pistol Braces, Sensitive Places, and now even still carry permit laws overturned before we work on smaller items like FOID. Not to say overturning FOID isn’t important. But with your money if you could only support one cause above… which would it be? for me, all of my money donated to a cause is still be directed to overturn all the unconstitutional carry laws. And now we have even new ones coming from CA and NY still!
  22. Cival war? Maybe? Another Jan 6? I highly doubt they would go that far. That would alienate so many people that democrats would lose even more seats. In the past, when a state or city has defied the courts, the president has sent in the national guard. While the lower courts have thumbed their noses at the Heller decision in the last 10 years. They have not refused and ignored a mandate from the Supreme Court In a very very long long time. That being said though… while NY and California are whining and crying. Even Bonta in California have admitted defeat on th good case issue. Even NY has, as well as NJ. They are just trying other tactics, other ideas, just to see what they can get away with. See how far the can push it. Challenge the courts to see if they will uphold SCOTUS and even challenge SCOTUS to see if they will issue a mandate, or if they will back down again and start denying cert on 2A cases again. With over 50 2A cases still pending in our courts nationwide, they have to be careful about how many we win. The more we win. The more precedent it creates for future cases. Thus making it easer and easier for us to win Even more. Basically creating a snowball effect. Big difference between just having 1 or 2 cases to cite, and have 30-40 cases to cite.
  23. We will see push back with lawsuits on anything the ATF is trying to ban. Bump Stocks, Braces, triggers and more. Keep in mind the current Bump Stock cases are only challenging the ATF on its authority to regulate those items without clear and direct action by congress. It’s “ambiguity”. The ATF waived Chevron Deference, it’s still coming into play. Chevron deference was ignored in AHA and WV cases. So we are clueless what they are thinking on these cases. But keep in mind if we loose those cases we can always go back and file a new case based on the 2A and 14A because those aren’t issues we brought up before.
  24. I highly doubt we will get any movement on MG’s even relaxing the 1986 limit. Where we might get movement is when it comes to silencers first and foremost. We might even get some form of movement with SBR and SBS. We won’t get any movement for sure on other weapons, or on dangerous explosive weapons. So if you own a bazooka, and some shells, those I am afraid will remain on the NFA list.
  25. At this point in Illinois it’s up to the state AG and gov to issue orders to do things differently, next step is the legislature changing current laws. The other option is that at any point from today forward. Someone could file a lawsuit against the state to force them to change sooner. They could file a motion for a injunction and temporary enjoinment of the law. Otherwise, it’s up to the legislature, AG and Gov to make the needed changes. I fully expect it to take legal action to get Illinois to enjoin those unconstitutional laws. The one’s I expect will be challenged in Illinois. Any AWB, Mag ban, FOID, locations, Ammunition, and of course Open carry. What one’s needs to understand. Is that even though we won with NYSPRA v Bruen. The other 7 May issue states are NOT required to change their laws, and their laws have not been ruled invalid, and been enjoined. Those states either have to have their legislatures change the law, or a court has to issue a mandate to rule that states law invalid and to enjoin enforcement. Now most states AG’s are issuing orders to follow the demand of SCOTUS until the legislatures can meet and change the law appropriately. California and New York’s legislatures are working on that now and trying to do things that will again be challenged in court.
  • Create New...