Jump to content

NakPPI

Members
  • Posts

    1,702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Deerfield, IL

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

NakPPI's Achievements

Member

Member (21/24)

  1. Read between the lines. He doesn't have the votes for a ban in an election year. He needs to do "something" in response to Highland Park. His answer is an administrative change, which doesn't require a super majority vote. Politics is all theater.
  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. Some attorneys travel, some won't. Most have a few counties that they will cover. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
  10. Motion isn't on the calendar for tomorrow... Something happen off call? Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
  11. Don't be jealous, but I should be able to go to this hearing. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
  12. Omg. Did a law student write this? This is friggin amateur pleading. They can't even get the fonts consistent from where they cut and pasted! Oh and the 7th circuit drafting rules say not to use sans serif fonts. Double fail. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
  13. If it's trying to get class certification, then it's likely a money damages sort of law suit. It may ultimately end in the invalidation of FOID, but without seeing the complaint it's all tin foil hat speculation. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
  14. Two shell bills in the self defense section? Ouch. Watch them try to add a duty to retreat or something. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
×
×
  • Create New...