Howard Roark

Todd, keep up the good work! 👍 Registration hasn't received much attention in the various lawsuits yet. Nor discussion on this website. Obviously that part of the law is of great concern. People should not assert anywhere, least of all on this website that they intend to decline to register, thus becoming felons... yet we know registration numbers will be low percentage, maybe 20%, if that part of the law is in effect on Jan 1, 2024. If you could comment and share your view on this topic, when that can safely be done, it would be quite helpful.

It'll pass. It's for the chilren.

Nice to have thier support! 👍

Thanks, there is a website on the internet where you can convert .mov files to .mp4 video files and they will be much smaller file size but still adequate video quality, just FYI.

Lot's of laughs in that one. Like this sentence: "It is a small wonder that Chief Cecile does not also claim the Rosamond Zoo to be a “location providing health ... care or services” (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(b)), and thus a “sensitive location” under the CCIA, on the grounds that Zoo staff provide dental exams to camels and maternity services to birds by incubating their eggs."

Would it be legal right now for a local gun store to sell a super-sized magazine to a named plaintiff individual?

I'll make my above post simple for the stupid anti-2A people: if AR-15 rifles are "weapons of war", as you say, then of course they are protected under the Constitutions Second Amendment. That's because the militia, composed of the people not the government, is neccessary to the security of freedom, and the militia need arms suitable to a modern militia. Governments around the world disarmed and killed over 200 million non-combatants in many countries in the last hundred years and are doing so right now in Ukraine. Of course it could happen here. You never know how much this country could change over the next 25 or 50 years and we as a nation, as a people, should not disarm ourselves in the mistaken belief that catastrophe cannot happen here. The Ukrainian people's lack of widespread ownership of and training in arms has reduced their ability to resist or prevent what is happening to them.

I've been enjoying his YouTube channel and learning quite a bit. In addition to his point here that the anti-2A advocates are trying to narrow the in-common-use test to mean only dynamic shots-fired events and exclude using semi autos and standard capacity magazines as insurance or fire extinguishers are used (as on going non-dynamic protection), I have the following observation: while the dynamic self-defense shots fired events usually involve fewer than 3 rounds fired, the 2A text prefatory clause about the necessity of a well regulated (effective) militia provides another obvious reason why semiautomatic rifles bans and magazine bans are Unconstitutional. Here is my reasoning: how can you have an effective militia if it is denied semi automatic rifles which are obviously the minimum that would be needed to protect your community and your geographical state from tyranny (whether that tyranny arise from foreign invaders or domestic out-of-control governments or large scale societal collapse. The milita clause text gives direct evidence for the conclusion that the 2A protects semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines. It is impossible the founders and creators of the Constitution meant for the people to only have hand guns and either no rifles or the least effective rifles that existed at that time and now. The militia clause seems to get less attention since most of the judicial activity over the last 15 years has been about the implicit individual self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment. But an explicit purpose (one of many) is right there in the 2A text. The people would find it much more difficult to resist invasion or outright domestic tyranny if they were armed with only hand guns or less effective bolt action rifles. And IL has now banned some bolt action rifles! I think I understand why our lawyers are mostly building on the individual self defense purpose. After all, most of our cases so far have built on that and we have 4 wins and zero losses at scotus based on that. Maybe there is less legal precedence to build on the militia clause and therefore greater risk? Yet to me, the militia clause is a powerful, undeniable proof that semiautomatic rifles and magazines are protected under the constitution and cannot be banned.

I read and enjoyed the entire initial brief (the complaint). Over the years I've read a lot of these and I find this one particularly well constructed, thorough, and persuasive. The government would have an impossible task of rebutting the complaint directly so they will not. Instead, the government will list each victim at Highland Park by name, age, exact injuries, and assert that but for the type of gun, the tragedy at HP would not have occurred. That, we know is a lie because bolt action rifles with a magazine are darn fast too and those are not yet on the banned list. There is no question though that goal of the criminal legislators is to dramatically extend the list to encompasses and ban as much as possible. Their own words and history prove that. This whole Firearms Ban Act is bananas. It's astounding they can enact such a dung heap of legislation after their 0-4 loss record at scotus and especially after the clear instructions and admonitions from the NYSPRA v Bruen case at scotus. They pole vaulted way past potato this time. Good job with this initial complaint document by the people involved. I'm especially happy Chuck Michel is one of the attorneys.

Do we have receipts? Having hard data about that would be helpful. Somehow, I am skeptical that this is generally or usually true. Most likely, charging the self defender with Unlawful Use of A Weapon would depend upon the race and demographics of the defender, given Chicago "leaders" obsession with race over blind unbiased justice. A defender who is perceived as having "privilege" like Whitey would more likely be charged. Female, Black, less likely. Non-binary? Even less likely. Friend or family of an Aldercreature? They certainly would never be charged much less prosecuted, but nobody should be, even Whitey. I'm reminded of Tom Wolfe's book, "Bonfire of the Vanities" as I think about this ugly truth about the motivation and bias of Blue Dem prosecutors in Blue Dem cities.

I am in, paid, my name will be on the list of plaintiffs!

Haha, that's true. It is never enough for the tyrants. We can be certain they view the 15 round mag limit as a loop hole and the other things too. The "magazine loop hole" they will howl. The scope loophole gives mass shooters the ability to kill more people more quickly, and givers super-human vision, so scopes must be banned next. And the pistol style grip on a semiauto rifle cause that gives power to spray bullets wildly like a fire hose, but they dont want you to be accurate either. And the ammo ban, we can be certain that will come along soon. No 5.56 or 223 without an ISP issued endorsement for your "assault weapon" on your FOID card. And so on.

Great new! I'm going to go dig up my buried guns and mags, I'll be right back.

.

I doubt it will complete. He can pick it up when the court blocks implementation. That should be fairly quick.

Gurl-bye ! 👋

You seem quite sanguine about it. That's too bad. A pity really. There really can be no question that prominent 2A advocates in this state may be singled out for aggressive treatment by the Illinois State Police. Many citizens will be at risk and many won't even know it.

I couldn't resist, so I clicked. That is one of the most bigoted and depraved things I have ever seen on the internet!

These lawsuits will all be Federal, 7th Circuit, I believe. Our lawyers are going to enjoy this.

Thanks for your work Valinda and Mike. Beautiful writing, Mauser.

But not all at once. Instead, drip drip drip, and sometimes "le deluge". They say, "nobody is trying to take away your guns", but their definition of "take away" is dishonest and they mean SWAT is not coming to your house "today" and "not yet", and by guns, they mean those guns that they are allowing you to retain... at this time, until the next time... you can keep those for now. Would they stop if all that were left were single shot muskets? I don't believe they would. What is my evidence? Their position in Heller (and today) is that the 2nd amendment does not protect any individual right to own any gun whatsoever for any reason.

Womp womp. 😄

I met him a couple of times. What an unpleasant arrogant man.

Haha. Hilarious expression. Even funnier with the potato mispel. P-o-t-a-t-o-e ?

Some of those spinless R's would probably vote for the bill. Durkin (Durbin's twin) probably would. Might even co sponsor it. That man hates gun owners... or has he changed? I think the percentage of semi auto rifle owners who register and pay the fines will be very low, probably less than 15%. The orders from SCOTUS in Bruen were crystal clear and this HB bill is completely against the SCOTUS orders and the Dems and their weak-cousin Rs know it. If it becomes law in Illinois, there will almost certainly be a block on it going into effect until it is ruled as Unconstitutional by the courts. The Bruen case at SCOTUS is not only a guide for legislators (Dems will ignore it), but for individual gun owners, most of whom will not. We know our rights.