Howard Roark Posted September 28, 2011 at 09:23 PM Share Posted September 28, 2011 at 09:23 PM Why would the bolt need removing? Something about being illegal to posess in Cook County. Perhaps there is an exception if it is a non-functional firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted September 28, 2011 at 09:26 PM Share Posted September 28, 2011 at 09:26 PM It was in the possession of the manufacturer, Mr. Mark Westrom. It was legal. Yes, I sort of assumed it was done legally, just wasn't sure whether legality was achieved by rendering it in-operable or by some other exception in the Cook County ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted November 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM Has anyone heard any more about this case since Sept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted November 22, 2011 at 01:13 PM Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 01:13 PM Response brief was due Nov. 18th. Court’s Order granting the Motion for appearances pro hac vice of Brady center counsel several amici filings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted November 22, 2011 at 01:30 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 01:30 PM Thanks Todd! Good to know it's not just sitting around stagnating. :Drunk emoticon: I was waiting for the Bradys to get their noses into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted November 22, 2011 at 02:25 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 02:25 PM I know that the Brady Center and Brady Campaign are two somewhat different organizations ... but I must say that I've heard relatively little out of the Brady Center over the past few months. I suspect it's possible that more of their resources are going into fighting these myriad gun control court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted November 22, 2011 at 02:30 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 02:30 PM Response brief was due Nov. 18th. Court’s Order granting the Motion for appearances pro hac vice of Brady center counsel several amici filings Despite what you'd think, "pro hac" is not short for "Professional Hack". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted November 22, 2011 at 04:34 PM Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 04:34 PM I'm hearing that Brady is in, so is LCAV and the inflatables. Chicago has filed for a brief. Now I am chasing down the ghosts, but one report has Cook County asking for another extension. And the amici wanting an extension beyond that. Either they are incompotent, lazy, understaffed or trying to drag this out or all of the above. We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice. We will just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted November 22, 2011 at 05:48 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 05:48 PM I'm hearing that Brady is in, so is LCAV and the inflatables. Chicago has filed for a brief. Now I am chasing down the ghosts, but one report has Cook County asking for another extension. And the amici wanting an extension beyond that. Either they are incompotent, lazy, understaffed or trying to drag this out or all of the above. We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice. We will just have to wait and see. And work our butts off to make sure that Obama doesn't get a chance to replace any of the five!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted November 22, 2011 at 06:40 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 06:40 PM We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice. Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated. That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted November 22, 2011 at 07:01 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 07:01 PM We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice. Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated. That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances). Just need a leaked email or memo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scough Posted November 22, 2011 at 08:02 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 08:02 PM We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice. Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated. That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances). Just need a leaked email or memo... Where's Wikileaks when you need 'em? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago guy Posted November 22, 2011 at 08:07 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 08:07 PM On a different, but related note -- The Joyce Foundation is the major funder of all these groups. During Beatrice Joyce's life the Foundation was never involved in anti second amendment activities. With a Self-perpetuating board there is no check on how they can decide to spend the money. I wonder if a court could find that these activities are not what she intended. It is rare, I think, for a court to "reform a trust" but it has been done. At least the publicity might slow them down a bit. Do we have any legal scholars who could persue this line of reasoning? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted November 22, 2011 at 08:19 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 08:19 PM We heard earlier this year, that the Chicago anti-gun strategy was to drag this out, hope for a second Obama term and then wait to replace 1 or more of the five with a anti-Heller justice. Sheesh. What a strategy. The courts would/should skin them alive if that strategy can be demonstrated. That would be a violation of Wilson's 1A rights (right to petition government for a redress of grievances). As I've watched this whole issue for the last 4-5 years, it's become very clear to me that Chicago politicians don't give two ***ts about the constitution. State or Federal. They truly don't think that any laws; moral, civil, criminal, local, state or Federal apply to them at all. They are "special" and their little world is so unique that it can't be bound or bothered by any laws except those that they write. I'm at a loss for words to describe my feelings about this. I guess I'm not really at a loss, it's just that if I use the ones that I'm thinking right now, I'd probably be banned. AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted November 22, 2011 at 09:29 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 09:29 PM leak it to the press, what there strategy is and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted November 22, 2011 at 09:30 PM Share Posted November 22, 2011 at 09:30 PM wait til obama wins then wait til a justice retires then hope the Senate approves the nomination then proceed with the case? What a bunch of idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted November 24, 2011 at 06:03 PM Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 at 06:03 PM here is the County's brief. Our side has filed a motion extending time our time to respond to 12/16.Wilson_Def\'s_Response_Brief_(Rd_#_2)_Supreme_Ctt.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted November 24, 2011 at 07:21 PM Share Posted November 24, 2011 at 07:21 PM Hope our side goes with the, "Dangerous or Unusual", or, "Not in Common Use", weapons they mention in this brief. Should be able to show that neither of these arguments are true. Wonder how many AR types people own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted November 24, 2011 at 07:31 PM Share Posted November 24, 2011 at 07:31 PM Thanks Todd. Reading those arguments as a whole ... it seems (to me at least) that this one is Wilson's to lose. The County's pivotal arguments are either easily refuted (semiautos aren't "dangerous" and certainly not unusual), or easily cast into much doubt (regarding how well they further a substantial governmental interest). In terms of determining efficacy of the county's gun ban, I truly hope that some of the fact-finding in this case will point to how effectively the county's ban has been enforced since 1993. I suspect that would be very telling, in terms of illuminating how necessary said law truly is to the county's interests. That said, am I correct in that a loss at the IL Supreme Court would allow Wilson to appeal directly to SCOTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted December 1, 2011 at 03:47 PM Share Posted December 1, 2011 at 03:47 PM That said, am I correct in that a loss at the IL Supreme Court would allow Wilson to appeal directly to SCOTUS? That's correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:10 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:10 PM FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:31 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:31 PM FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there. We'll be with you in spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:46 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:46 PM what do you all think the outcome will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:53 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 07:53 PM what do you all think the outcome will be I'm about 66% confident Wilson will prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Posted December 21, 2011 at 08:17 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 08:17 PM what do you all think the outcome will be This case has been going on for so very long, I have a hard time imagining its conclusion anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted December 21, 2011 at 09:32 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 09:32 PM The judge is in a bind. The Chicago machine wants one thing, the Constitution demands another. Do what the law demands, then become a political pariah. Do what the machine wants; find yourself stuck at the same level for the rest of his/her career.... (no chance at supreme court.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 21, 2011 at 09:55 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 09:55 PM FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there.In Springfield? That surprises me. I just thought with Cook Co. being involved it would have to be in the northern district court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted December 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM FYI: Oral arguments schedule for the morning of Wed. Jan 18, in Springfield, probably around 9:30AM. I'll be there.In Springfield? That surprises me. I just thought with Cook Co. being involved it would have to be in the northern district court. It's the IL Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted December 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM Share Posted December 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM It's the IL Supreme Court.Where's the "face palm" smiley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted December 22, 2011 at 05:29 AM Share Posted December 22, 2011 at 05:29 AM It's the IL Supreme Court.Where's the "face palm" smiley? funny transition here on the face palm! all good ! David's estimate of 66 pct for us is probably right. I wish it was 100 percent. See ya'll soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.