richp

Anyone know why?

Once again, Molly to the rescue! Thank you for the many things you do - seen and unseen - for individuals here, for us as a group, and for everyone in the state who values this important right.

mab, that wasn't a defeatest post -- it was what I see as a realistic assessment of how future party leaders need to address the current, very dramatic imbalance.

Until the Republicans in this state take back the legislative branch, then having the governor's office is almost futile, as was shown by Bruce Rauner. And not far behind that, is the problem of a blatantly politically oriented state Supreme Court. Anyone who stands back and objectively looks at the campaign for these Supreme Court seats ought to be appalled at the partisan appeal for what at least theoretically ought to be objective, non-partisan judicial positions. We can't expect to get proper decisions out of a court that presently is made up the way this one is. That's a long way of saying that rebuilding the Republican party and its influence in Illinois is going to be a huge, long-term project. If it can be done at all...

How can anyone have confidence in the impartiality of our court system when major media outlets so blatantly (and sadly, accurately) characterize our Supreme Court in openly political terms? https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/11/8/23448367/illinois-supreme-court-judge-elizabeth-rochford-election

Drives me crazy to see Pritzker's political ads claiming he has solved the state's financial problems, when what he did was shuffle around some of the Federal funds that were thrown our way for Covid. All the structural problems remain, and he has shown no indication of being even slightly interested in tackling them.

The genie is out of the bottle, and they won't be able to get it back in, any more than they have the drug trade. More so with these. They are small, easily domestically reproducible items. And as we all know, laws don't deter people who are not fundamentally honest anyway.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/10/28/23331107/handguns-switches-sear-extended-capacity-magazines-machine-guns-violence After mentioning how many switched Glocks have been recovered, there is this... "Rand says ATF should consider using its authority to reclassify certain types of firearms that are easily converted into fully automatic weapons. Other firearms besides Glocks also are “readily convertible” into machine guns by machining or adding a few parts, she says. ATF should be looking at using their existing authority to classify some of these firearms as ‘machine guns’ as they did in the 1980s with the KG-9, MAC-10 and STEN,” Rand says. “This is a classic example of how the gun industry escapes responsibility for problems of their own making.”

Let's revisit this in few years from now and hope I'm wrong.

Yes Mauser, but we have seen how hard the lower courts work to evade what we see as the plain meaning of Heller and McDonald. I think it will take more emphatic follow-up SC decisions to nail down something like this. I know how pessimistic I must sound. But time and time again the SC -- Thomas aside -- has failed us. Maybe it will be different now, but it will take a change of direction in the lower courts for that to happen any time soon. Andby all means, praying people should have Thomas' health and long life high on their daily prayer list.

I probably never should have started going down this road, because I don't seem to be able to convey the nuances that I see here, and that the partial attorney quote touched on. But I will say this. I would be greatly surprised if the SC does anything as dramatic and impactful as Bruen for quite a while. They're very likely going to watch what happens in the lower courts, and also tread very lightly on any further 2A expansion, notwithstanding the fact the majority seems to exist to do that. Again, I'm not wishing this were so. But I'm enough of a cynic, and have been watching these kinds of things long enough, to come to that conclusion.

OK, so I could have picked a better example under current caselaw. But the basic premise remains. Looking back to history on other issues gives many opportunities for clever lawyers to attack various elements of today's life. And once the SC teases out the related nuances that Bruen's historical principle opens up, it will very likely feed back unfavorably. And when it does, the current euphoria about Second Amendment issues may begin to dissipate, as we see less expansive SC interpretations emerge. Don't take me wrong - I don't want that to happen. But I think the reality of the way our courts operate will lead in that direction.

Gotcha. Score one for the internet's inability to convey nuance.

Sorcerer, you're exactly right there is no constitutional provision about horses. What there is, is a provision about the freedom to travel. And somewhere out there is a person who will look for a lawyer to argue that vehicle licensing requirements are an infringement on that right to travel because back in the good old days travel was accomplished with horses and horses were never registered. That's the analogy they will look to under this new legal theory. Not saying it's a sound challenge, or one that's likely to prevail in isolation. But there are people out there who like to push limits, and that's an illustration of where this new approach to the Constitution could lead. Remember, there already are folks out there who refuse to acknowledge the government's authority to issue a driver's license. And that, perhaps, is a better example - the argument that state requirements of that type for identity are an infringement on personal privacy, and no such requirements existed in the early days of our republic. Back to the core of my original thought here. Cases of that type in non-firearms related matters will eventually nibble away at the edges of Bruen's application. It won't happen right away, simply because it takes a long time for cases to percolate up to the Supreme Court. But it's very likely to happen in the long run.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand and have widely read, Bruen is based on a principle of historical reference that already has been applied in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, and likely will be a touchstone for the Supreme Court's future decisions in other areas. Part of an email from an actual attorney I know. "Is email not protected from government search and seizure simply because it did not exist at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted? Because that's where this logic gets you. ... Gov can ban you from posting on your blog because no internet back then. It can torture you for a confession, as long as they do it with electricity, since that hadn't been discovered yet. It cannot ban private ownership of RPGs because rocket propelled grenades did exist until the 20th century. The list could go on forever." What I was trying to say was that the Court is eventually going to modify that operating principle involving historical reference. And when they do that -- even though that particular case may not involve Second Amendment rights -- it will eventually feed back into future Second Amendment decisions.

And its just this kind of attempted extension of Bruen that will eventually dilute it. There are too many modern activities -- not just in the gun arena -- that can't be shoehorned into a historic framework. As an easy example, do you suppose the fact horses were not registered in the late 1700s will result in modern car serial numbers and registration being abolished? Or that because there was no social security back then, that it will be discontinued? Crazy sounds crazy, but those are the kinds of things that somebody on the fringe will dredge up in litigation, and eventually Bruen will be refined.

And isn't it a shame that we have to rely on the initiative of one guy like Proft to carry the water on this?

And of course, as you would expect, the Tribune has endorsed Pritzker. Colonel McCormick must be rolling over in his grave.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2022-10-03/

Yeah, but from what I understand, the polling so far has been pretty light in Chicago cemeteries. When that vote comes in, Pritzker will be a lock.

Let me see if I have this right. A statute limits citizen access to a constitutional right. Part of that limitation involves an administrative structure within the executive branch. The executive branch fails to implement that administrative structure, thus denying citizens their constitutional right. How is there not a lawsuit in there somewhere, in behalf of the people whose rights have been denied through failure to provide a timely review of their access to this important constitutional right?

Seems like there ought to be a lawsuit in here somewhere.

Smallbore, that assumes there are no people who are ambivalent about the issue, or who are persuadable, if there are any nuances that could be explained. It's those people whom the Republicans could potentially bring over to their side if a more well rounded ad campaign was conducted. Failing to rebut those current abortion-related anti-Bailey ads lets them portray him as a one-dimensional candidate, when in fact there are many other attributes he would bring to the table if elected. They need to be highlighted, beyond what he currently is doing.

That's been happening to me too. It's interesting to me that all of the Bailey ads that I see here in the northern part of the state focus on crime, and do nothing to answer the anti Bailey ads that focus on the abortion issue. Apparently Bailey's people don't feel comfortable with responding. But for a large number of voters, abortion is something that they will take into consideration. So as useful as it for the Republicans to focus on crime, I think it's bordering on political malpractice not to do something to more effectively manage Bailey's position on the abortion issue.

Mark, there are a number of signs up now for other various candidates. A quick look at our ordinances just now doesn't disclose anything about such a limitation. It's a notable change from last election cycle, when, Biden signs seemingly were everywhere.