Jump to content

NakPPI

Members
  • Posts

    1,695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Deerfield, IL

NakPPI's Achievements

Member

Member (21/24)

  1. This looks like typical Illinois theater to me. All of the house members and senate members can now say that they voted to "fix the foid" without actually having passed the bill. Then in November, fix the foid can be a campaign issue if they need it to be, or they can ignore it. They then put forward the "refrigerator" FOID version which creates more government bureaucracy, which all Illinois politicians love because it lets them give more jobs to their buddies and allows the politicians to run on the ISP "may" create an electronic foid which "everyone" likes. See, we voted to "fix the foid" and now the ISP may create an electronic FOID when they get around to it! Everything is better now, vote for me! It's pure Illinois political theater, it's just missing Madigan forcing a floor vote on every single amendment to create a bill like he did with the concealed carry act.
  2. Then you would get a 2A challenge to the entire act because it would allow the denial of 2A rights indefinitely by the state police. Such a law would be "too cute by half" as stated in Ezell.
  3. If the court were to grant the injunction, the state would likely be forced to spend the money to comply with the existing law. If the State failed to comply, it would be followed by a what's called a Rule to Show Cause hearing (contempt) due to failure of the State to comply with the injunction. Rule to Show cause hearings can be nasty, it puts the party that failed to comply with the Court's order at the mercy of the court. Would the court enjoin the actual enforcement of the FOID card? That's unlikely, but just like everything else in Illinois, a rule to show cause order can be used as a club to wield against the legislature to address problems.
  4. The Wombacher case needs to be voluntarily non-suited so that the Easterday opinion is the law. They need to suck it up and realize that for the benefit of everyone the Easterday case needs to stand as the final order.
  5. Yea... This is foolishness, TRO will likely be denied because money damages are available... Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
  6. Both cases are now in front of Judge Berrones, instead of Judge Marcouiller. Berrones is the judge that had Friedman before it was removed to Federal court. Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
  7. Apparently the transportation section does exempt FOID holders so that's a bad example. Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
  8. Standing is going to turn on how they're challenging the ordinance and which parts of it. You have to be impacted by the ordinance in some way to have standing. There are various points that violate preemption, but until they try to enforce it against a FOID holder or CCL holder it's a grey area. Say a FOID holder in Deerfield files suit challenging the transportation section. Deerfield could amend the ordinance to say it doesn't apply to FOID holders and the suit becomes moot. Deerfield would be insane to fight that law suit, the preemption case law is quite clear in Illinois, but hey this is Illinois municipalities routinely thumb their noses at state law and wait to be sued to change it. If the challenge is based on 2A, it loses because the Highland Park case is still binding case law. The only point of that is to get it to SCOTUS. Either way, they'll find a Deerfield resident that's a member. Probably a WWII veteran or some such. Friedman is retired Navy. Example of above: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1878480.html Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
  9. Some attorneys travel, some won't. Most have a few counties that they will cover. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
  10. There are a ton of reasons why you can't carry today. All that matters is that the statute challenged in Aguilar no longer exists. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
  11. I suppose that the NRA could now file a suit arguing that the delay language in FCCA is unconstitutional in State court. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
  12. The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
  13. No you can't carry today. See the foot note about how the opinion doesn't address the FCCA? Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
  14. http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
×
×
  • Create New...