Texasgrillchef
-
Posts
204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Texasgrillchef
-
-
This isn’t as bad news as everyone thinks it is.
St Benitez isn’t going to change his ruling.
The only thing this does is delay the inevitable. Ca will appeal this back to the 9th Circuit. Then on to the En Banc. Which if they don’t uphold Judge St. Benitez. They know SCOTUS will overturn their ruling. If it end up in front of SCOTUS with an improper ruling they will end giving the 9th circuit an opinion they won’t like.
So all the 9th circuit is trying to do is delay it for as long as they can.
-
On 8/4/2022 at 2:01 PM, Euler said:
On July 7, Cook County requested, and was granted, an extension to update their case due to "rapidly-evolving circumstances" (i.e., Bruen). They intend to produce an expert on firearms history who will substantiate the historical context of the AWB. Previously Cook County had until July 15. Now it has until September 15.
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.
-
On 8/3/2022 at 6:46 PM, Euler said:
Based on the law as written, she's guilty, but the county court has ruled twice that the law is unconstitutional. The second time that the county court ruled, it ruled despite the IL Supreme Court directing it simply to dismiss the case. It will be interesting to see what procedural twist the county court dreams up for round #3.
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.
-
On 8/3/2022 at 11:47 AM, Euler said:
The Illinois Supreme Court is the highest court in the state, which has indeed previously ruled on state arms prohibitions being unconstitutional. People v Webb (stun guns/tasers) comes to mind.
The only place to go with this case after the Illinois Supreme Court is the US Supreme Court. Since the IL Supreme Court keeps remanding, it's not upholding a conviction, which means Brown has nothing to appeal to the US Supreme Court. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The IL Supreme Court keeps directing the county court to dismiss the charges, saying there are (unspecified) grounds to do so.
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.
-
On 8/2/2022 at 7:21 PM, MrTriple said:
A part of me wonders if any AWB case will make it to the Supreme Court without a lower court striking it down first. I would think that the GVR of Bianchi would be taken as a clear indication of the Court's thinking, and many judges won't want to issue a ruling they know SCOTUS would strike down on appeal.
For judges who want to "minimize the damage caused by Bruen," the strategic thing to do is strike the law down and leave it at that. I guarantee that the gun control movement now wishes that the lower courts had struck New York's good cause requirement in the first instance.
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.
-
Pushed to December for oral argument intentionally by the appeals court to delay things.
-
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.
-
On 7/22/2022 at 5:50 PM, MrTriple said:
I was actually thinking the exact opposite, that these judges won't want to bother trying to debate the issue and simply want these cases closed and done. The idea being that it's easier for them to simply strike the laws down and call it a day.
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”
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
We will get a briefing schedule within the next two weeks.
-
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.
-
On 6/30/2022 at 10:31 PM, EdDinIL said:
What happens if CA, NY, IL, and other major gun control states, and I suppose the Feds too, all push back and say, "naah, get bent, SCOTUS, we like our crappy laws and made-up regulations"? I feel like they're one childish temper tantrum away from telling everyone to try and make them comply.
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.
-
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.
-
On 6/30/2022 at 1:15 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:
What a great day for Cook County, Chicago, Aurora, and a few other places with AWB's or mag bands.
I would also like to know what this means for NFA items?
MG's are in common use by the military, and most other states allow them (even with all the NFA BS). What about Illinios?
SBR's? No more red tape.
Silencers? Well, the military is using them more and more.. I say that it is time for Illinois to get in on the act.
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.
-
On 6/30/2022 at 12:19 PM, THE KING said:
At what point do these cases affect Illinois and the rest of the country.
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.
-
On 6/30/2022 at 12:38 PM, bmyers said:
My understanding is that directly, none of these cases will affect Illinois since none of them are in our District.
Yet, indirectly, they will affect all districts because SCOTUS has told them their decisions were wrong and do over. This puts ever district on notice of what the expectations are from SCOTUS. Now, as we know some judges feel that they are above the law/are the law and will make decisions based on what they want and then will have to be smacked down by a higher court.
All theses cases will be citable to my understanding since SCOTUS passed judgement on them, so they do affect our circuit.
Maybe someone way smarter than me can come along and explain it better.
That’s not an easy answer.So will explain it like this.
Young V Hawaii and Duncan v Bonta are both in the 9th circuit.
However, there are several other cases in the 9th circuit that are similar to young’s, and similar to Duncan’s.
Those cases are on hold. They will come off hold, and those cases will immediately be decided in light of NYSPRA v Bruen. Those cases could be decided BEFORE the circuit court decides Young or Duncan. Those other cases are required to use the Bruen case because both Young and Duncan were GVR’d and because of Bruen case.
All those other cases will effect all states in the 9th circuit.
This is similar to Bianchi v Frosh and ANJRPC v Platkin and the other similar cases on hold because of Bruen and/or Frosh &/or ANJRPC.
So those cases will affect those circuits.
however… what’s interesting is that ANY NEW case filed in ANY district court, or even current cases APPEALED to the circuit court from the District will be required to use the BRUEN case for a decision.
once these 4 cases get decided and a mandate issued by their appropriate circuit court. Those opinions will then be allowed to be used as case law for all future cases in all district and circuit courts because they were GVR’d by SCOTUS.
So as far as any NEW cases filed, or any case that was recently filed and a hearing has yet to happen. Bruen will rule. One example of this is the case challenging the Washington State Magazine ban that goes into effect tomorrow. That lawyer has already file an emergency stay, using both Bruen, and the fact Duncan v Bonta has been GVR’d
-
On 6/30/2022 at 10:04 AM, bmyers said:
20-1507 ASSN. OF NJ RIFLE, ET AL. V. BRUCK, ATT'Y GEN. OF NJ, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
21-1194 DUNCAN, VIRGINIA, ET AL. V. BONTA, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
21-902 BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
I didn't se anything listed for Young
20-1639 YOUNG, GEORGE K. V. HAWAII, ET AL.
That’s because young was listed between the two cases, so it’s “included” as a grant vacate and remand.it’s weird aphis and why they do that. But they do.
docket for young. Look at last entryhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1639.html
-
Just like I thought!
all four granted vacated and remanded, all found unconstitutional!
open carry coming to Illinois and all other 50 states.
Magazine Ban found unconstitutional
AWB’s found unconstitutional!
-
Last order list to be released at 10:45 est.
We will have resolution on those 4 cases that were in conference yesterday.
cross your fingers!
-
Here is one other thing to keep in mind in regards to issuing permits from previously “May issue” states.
If a state were to deny permit applications for the reason of not providing “good and justifiable” reasons…. And they deny say 5 or 10 thousand of them. They might have issues in the court for doing that.
however, it will be about 90 days before we know for sure if they have in fact started to issue permits. They may say they will, but until then do we won’t be for sure.
hopefully they will, they should. but as we know not everyone does what they should.
Now as far as this case goes, people v brown. I highly doubt at this point this case will get any parts enjoined, or ruled invalidated from being Unconstitutional.
It will take another case, a cival lawsuit suing Illinois on all or parts of FOID as being unconstitutional.
Who will take up that case? How long will it take? Eventually yes.
As far as I can tell, no one has filed suit yet.
Also keep in mind, that the four cases that was previously on Hold pending on NYSPRA case have now gone to todays conference (6-29-2022). So we should have answers on those cases tomorrow. Maybe Friday, but I suspect tomorrow.
ANJRPC v Platkin, New Jersey Mag capacity ban
Duncan v Bonta, California Mag Cap Ban
Young V Hawaii, open carry permitting
Bianchi V Frosh, Maryland AWB and Mag Cap ban
Those 4 cases will make huge impacts nationwide on any state or city that have a AWB and Mag Cap ban.
Young May end up bringing open carry to those states and areas that don’t allow it. Such as New York, California, Florida, and Illinois! (I might be missing somewhere too)
Reciprocity &/or lacking the issuance of a non-Resident permit is about to be challenged in court. Illinois will be challenged for only doing 6 states, and not all 50.
Many other areas and laws will be challenged soon as well.
Just wait… Patience grasshopper!
-
On 6/22/2022 at 8:24 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:
Building? I thought it was done. My understanding is it's large enough to consolidate everything but they want to be in two locations GA and TX.
There's a long history with the old CEO and family but they are either gone from the company or already in TX. They had some unbelievable houses that ended up being sold for, well nickels, on the dollar when they left. The ISU buildings and legacy will eventually disappear from significance and Bloomington will go from 1/2 getto to 100% and ISU will itself need a wall. They have been asking employees questions about where they would be willing to work for a while now, answer wrong and you will find your job someplace else. Last I knew was still using main frame computers I don't know where they are at now. I wouldn't move my computing to the cloud especially if you have any data (that's where they bend you over) but companies are building their own "cloud" type computing solutions.
Most appear done. It looks like one buildings still under construction. 3 towers it looks like total.I have no clue if they are full or not, or what they are being used for. I know a lot of companies are moving to Texas.
Elon Musk moved Tesla to Texas, and all of his Space-X facilities are here in Texas.
But back to the topic…
I am sure next session, we will have legislators attempt to pass various laws on banning various locations around the state.
Many states are hoping on the bandwagon writing bills to ban certain locations. They are going off what was said in the November 3rd NYSPRA arguments and what the Justices labeled as “Sensitive places”
I think though, that they will be disappointed in what Justice Thomas has to say about what locations will be considered a sensitive place.
I doubt parks, and outdoor nature areas will be deemed a sensitive place. Maybe certain buildings, no different then National Parks Buildings.
-
See my previous post above….
However, keep in mind that once SCOTUS rules that a AWB or Magazine Ban as unconstitutional, that any laws federal or state, or even local become immediately
UNENFORCEABLE by any LEO, or Prosecutor or any local, state, or federal court in the land.
Any prosecutor or LEO who attempts to enforce such a unconstitutional law can be sued for malice.
Miller v. Bonta, California AWB case
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion
Posted
Well there are time limits for filing appeals, and filing for an En Banc hearing.
However, as far as I can tell there are no time limits for a Justices issuing opinions. That being said though. They can’t indefinitely hold off an opinion without just cause.
Staying cases is also another tactic. Such as many cases here stayed and held in abeyance due to the NYSPRA v Bruen case.
I will do some research and see how long they can hold opinions before someone can take action.