People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court

[Jeffrey]

On 8/17/2023 at 9:58 AM, TargetCollector said:

I can see there's no convincing you of anything.  Just know that there are independents like myself who categorically disagree with the recent trends in the Republican party and its candidates while also wholeheartedly supporting gun rights.  I have contributed thousands of dollars to ISRA and SAF to support cases like these, have called my state rep and senator each time these bills make it to the floor, filed the witness slips and spent time taking skeptical friends to the range to educate them about what these things actually do instead of what they've seen in the movies and news.  

 

Consistently, though, you make it sound as if I'm automatically your enemy because I'm not a MAGA Republican or anything close to it.  You're assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with ALL of your positions is therefore your enemy and that you don't need their support.  That frankly sounds a lot like Hillary in 2016.

As a registered R myself, I don't feel that the party is doing anything for us what so ever.  I'd be interested to know what trends they are making that Independents would disagree with?

[davel501]

On 8/17/2023 at 10:41 AM, Jeffrey said:

As a registered R myself, I don't feel that the party is doing anything for us what so ever.  I'd be interested to know what trends they are making that Independents would disagree with?

 

Yeah, lately it just feels like Rs are just Ds that want to take different freedoms.

[yurimodin]

On 8/17/2023 at 10:41 AM, Jeffrey said:

As a registered R myself, I don't feel that the party is doing anything for us what so ever.  I'd be interested to know what trends they are making that Independents would disagree with?

Its because they aren't doing anything. All they are good for is fundraising and whining about not having the majority(and then wasting it when they do have the majority).

 

 

[2A4Cook]

On 8/17/2023 at 11:10 AM, yurimodin said:

Its because they aren't doing anything. All they are good for is fundraising and whining about not having the majority(and then wasting it when they do have the majority).

 

 

Still too many UniParty hacks in both houses, including a UniParty Majority Leader in the Senate and a Speaker who is improving but nonetheless a veteran of the UniParty.  I'm all for advocating, talking to people, etc.  Independents can be persuaded.  Democrats are extremely difficult, because even those remaining who are still sane are scared to death to voice disagreement with ANY stance the party now stands behind like a giant hive mind.  Thou shalt agree with EVERYTHING thou art told by the insane Left, or thou shalt be canceled, ostracized, called every vile name in the book, etc.  The so-called "tolerant left" has no tolerance for any disagreement with any single aspect of their insane platform/agenda.  

[mab22]

On 8/17/2023 at 9:58 AM, TargetCollector said:

I can see there's no convincing you of anything.  Just know that there are independents like myself who categorically disagree with the recent trends in the Republican party and its candidates while also wholeheartedly supporting gun rights.  I have contributed thousands of dollars to ISRA and SAF to support cases like these, have called my state rep and senator each time these bills make it to the floor, filed the witness slips and spent time taking skeptical friends to the range to educate them about what these things actually do instead of what they've seen in the movies and news.  

 

Consistently, though, you make it sound as if I'm automatically your enemy because I'm not a MAGA Republican or anything close to it.  You're assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with ALL of your positions is therefore your enemy and that you don't need their support.  That frankly sounds a lot like Hillary in 2016.

I have been convinced of a lot of things over the years, apparently not to your liking.

Many people have done, witness slips, donated money, some even paid to be part of cases. Yet I don't see them acting like their buts should be kissed or should be treated like royalty.

No one called you an enemy, they just post things pointing out that the fat king in Springfield and his posse are not interested  in any sort of negotiation or dialog.

And then there is the attempted attack insulting people with a "Hillary 2016" slight. insinuating they a "Democrats"....

 

Amen to the block feature.🙏

 

 

 

[TargetCollector]

On 8/17/2023 at 1:23 PM, mab22 said:

I have been convinced of a lot of things over the years, apparently not to your liking.

Many people have done, witness slips, donated money, some even paid to be part of cases. Yet I don't see them acting like their buts should be kissed or should be treated like royalty.

No one called you an enemy, they just post things pointing out that the fat king in Springfield and his posse are not interested  in any sort of negotiation or dialog.

And then there is the attempted attack insulting people with a "Hillary 2016" slight. insinuating they a "Democrats"....

 

Amen to the block feature.🙏

 

 

 

 

I asked for no special treatment or negotiation with the other side.  I asked you to recognize that some of this community are gun rights supporters who don't happen to agree with a number of your other positions.  I don't think I'm asking a lot to ask that folks consider keeping their conversations related to gun rights on a gun rights forum.  You want to bring up a bunch of unrelated politics, take it to the back room.  Leave a little room for people to disagree with you on some things while agreeing with you on all the things that brought us here in the first place.  

[Smallbore]

On 8/17/2023 at 11:23 PM, TargetCollector said:

 

I asked for no special treatment or negotiation with the other side.  I asked you to recognize that some of this community are gun rights supporters who don't happen to agree with a number of your other positions.  I don't think I'm asking a lot to ask that folks consider keeping their conversations related to gun rights on a gun rights forum.  You want to bring up a bunch of unrelated politics, take it to the back room.  Leave a little room for people to disagree with you on some things while agreeing with you on all the things that brought us here in the first place.  

I admit I am confused as to who is advocating what with the above posts.

To interject my two cents:

I do not recalls conservative asking progressives to limit their speech to only what conservatives agree with. The anti 2A progressives initiated the need for this forum. Now are we conservatives being asked  to ignore the progressives disrespectful politics that brought and keep us together at this forum? We are now to silent our voices, our opinions criticising those politicians who fight hard to steal our basic rights, liberty, freedom? Progressives are not a one issue political ideology. As a conservative I will not let them control/limit my stance to one issue ignoring their combined political issues justify to themselves their Anti2 hatred.

[richp]

Focus people, focus...

 

Our common goal here is to focus on full restoration and reactivation of our Second Amendment rights.

[bcook619]

The only goal for everyone who cares about freedom is to move out of this state. It is lost. Face it. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 8/18/2023 at 10:23 AM, bcook619 said:

The only goal for everyone who cares about freedom is to move out of this state. It is lost. Face it. 

I have hope the SCOTUS will fix all this but the time is a killer.

The other problem is there a way to stop them from knowing passing unconstitutional laws to continue to delay our rights. 

As Martin Luther King Jr said a right delayed is a right denied and SCOTUS needs b... slap Illinois Supreme Court maybe someone there needs to file a complaint to get someone disbarred.

I've long said we need a independent constitutional review board on bills before they are passed. 

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 8/18/2023 at 11:17 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I have hope the SCOTUS will fix all this but the time is a killer.

Remember SCOTUS could make all of this move faster if they wanted it to......

[Quiet Observer]

On 8/18/2023 at 11:57 AM, yurimodin said:

Remember SCOTUS could make all of this move faster if they wanted it to......

What extensive knowledge do you have of the Supreme Court's procedures that you can reliably make this statement? 

 

[JTHunter]

On 8/18/2023 at 11:57 AM, yurimodin said:

Remember SCOTUS could make all of this move faster if they wanted it to......

 

Just remember - that is a BIG "if".

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 8/18/2023 at 12:10 PM, Quiet Observer said:

What extensive knowledge do you have of the Supreme Court's procedures that you can reliably make this statement? 

 

 

Justice ACB took the appeal and the SCOTUS declined to intervene in the stay of the injunction.   The SCOTUS could have looked at the entire law and made a final ruling right then.  

 

Probably the most famous case of a SCOTUS intervention was when the SCOTUS took the Florida election case in 2000. 

[springfield shooter]

On 8/21/2023 at 4:59 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Justice ACB took the appeal and the SCOTUS declined to intervene in the stay of the injunction.   The SCOTUS could have looked at the entire law and made a final ruling right then.  

 

Probably the most famous case of a SCOTUS intervention was when the SCOTUS took the Florida election case in 2000. 

 

IIRC, the time before counting and certifying the Electoral College vote was pretty short in that case.

[mikew]

On 8/18/2023 at 11:57 AM, yurimodin said:

Remember SCOTUS could make all of this move faster if they wanted it to......

First it would have to actually get in front of SCOTUS.

 

At this point it's still a criminal case that has been remanded back to circuit court.

 

[Yeti]

On 8/18/2023 at 8:56 AM, Smallbore said:

I admit I am confused as to who is advocating what with the above posts.

To interject my two cents:

I do not recalls conservative asking progressives to limit their speech to only what conservatives agree with. The anti 2A progressives initiated the need for this forum. Now are we conservatives being asked  to ignore the progressives disrespectful politics that brought and keep us together at this forum? We are now to silent our voices, our opinions criticising those politicians who fight hard to steal our basic rights, liberty, freedom? Progressives are not a one issue political ideology. As a conservative I will not let them control/limit my stance to one issue ignoring their combined political issues justify to themselves their Anti2 hatred.

Reading through the posts above, I also am confused as to what was being advocated for.  There seems to be some painting with a broad brush while asking to not be treated the same way related to politics or beliefs?

 

I would appreciate some more context on what seems to be the suggestion that people outside of the Democratic party are supposed to help change that party when the people in the party seem to have no interest in change from within or willingness to make it their #1 priority?  Posts above suggest that there are a growing number of people who don't vote Republican but want guns/don't want gun control but no evidence was provided on numbers.  If there is anything beyond the anecdotal to support this, I would be interested in the data as increasing legislation to enact gun control lately seems to be showing the opposite.  To date, I have seen zero evidence that there is a push within the D party to really want to change on guns... that would require prioritizing the 2A issue above others.  This poll is one that also provides some data to show the opposite may be true:

After Uvalde shooting, poll shows Americans' views on gun rights (usatoday.com)

 

The poll of nearly 1,300 adults found Democrats overwhelmingly agree controlling gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights (88%), and about 55% of independents say the same. 

 

Gun Control is undeniably a core part of the Democratic Party platform... spelled out clearly right there on page 47.  Every vote for a Democratic leader supports the platform and is therefore a vote for gun control.  If people want to choose to prioritize other social issues over guns and vote D, that is their right and I respect their choice.  That said, that means they are also voting against MY priority and my rights on this issue.  They are contributor to the group who make this forum necessary and the fight for a core constitutional right necessary.  They are part of a group that make me pour huge resources in $, in time, in energy, and in stress into fighting this battle.   They are part of a group that makes the current legal battles so important as they themselves aren't helping to win the fight politically.

 

I am not sure how to make people feel better about prioritizing other issues above Second Amendment freedom in this forum that's specifically focused on regaining gun rights.  And, after being battle-worn after years of the fight, should I?  Helping to fuel this fight with their votes and then hoping to act a little later in remorse to extinguish a few of the flames might be personal conundrum for some, but I don't have an answer for that. 

 

Personally, I do not align exactly with any political group on every single issue (and never will) but I do refuse to vote for people who represent gun control as a core tenant of the party.  Second Amendment rights are my top priority as I believe they protect all others.  I must try to protect these rights from those who continuously vote to try to strip them away.  That's why I have to be here...

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 at 02:51 PM by Yeti
Fat fingers and small keys

[yurimodin]

On 8/21/2023 at 5:39 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

IIRC, the time before counting and certifying the Electoral College vote was pretty short in that case.

and most of the ppl here are looking at possible felonies in 4 months.

[springfield shooter]

On 8/24/2023 at 9:48 AM, yurimodin said:

and most of the ppl here are looking at possible felonies in 4 months.

 

Bush V. Gore was decided 12/12/2000, less than four weeks before the Electoral College was to meet.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 8/17/2023 at 11:23 PM, TargetCollector said:

 

I asked for no special treatment or negotiation with the other side.  I asked you to recognize that some of this community are gun rights supporters who don't happen to agree with a number of your other positions.  I don't think I'm asking a lot to ask that folks consider keeping their conversations related to gun rights on a gun rights forum.  You want to bring up a bunch of unrelated politics, take it to the back room.  Leave a little room for people to disagree with you on some things while agreeing with you on all the things that brought us here in the first place.  

This has been my biggest pet peeve with the gun community since stepping foot into the community. We need to stick to single issues, bond on our similarities and ignore our differences. The opposition is unified against us and we bicker amongst ourselves about side-line issues. 

 

[mikew]

On 8/29/2023 at 8:21 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

This has been my biggest pet peeve with the gun community since stepping foot into the community. We need to stick to single issues, bond on our similarities and ignore our differences. The opposition is unified against us and we bicker amongst ourselves about side-line issues. 

 

Well said.

BTW it was a pleasure to see you speak at the meeting in Algonquin.

[Smallbore]

On 8/29/2023 at 8:47 AM, mikew said:

Well said.

BTW it was a pleasure to see you speak at the meeting in Algonquin.

Are not those differences used by some gun supporters to continually vote in anti-gun politicians. Shutting us up about those differences do not get them to vote for our liberty. In fact it justifies them keep attacking our freedoms. Those differences prevent a united front. Those differences are on them.

[krm3051]

I think somewhere along the way this thread has jumped off the rail. I clicked on it to see if there were any updates on this case and the last several pages contain nothing relative to People vs Brown.  Does anyone have any updates on the time line of this case. 

 

Thanks John

[Silhouette]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, Molly B. said:

Received word on movement in this case:

 

The Fifth District Appellate Court has finally reversed and remanded the erroneous ruling based on the "impossibility of compliance" argument that no one made or argued. 

 

We now get to make the "unconstitutionality of the FOID Card" argument for a third time in White County Circuit Court, and, assuming it is again granted, will result in the matter being heard in the Illinois Supreme Court for a third time. This time, of course, Bruen is the applicable standard, which will no doubt affect the legal arguments by counsel and the analysis by the Courts.

 

 Molly provided an updated about three pages back that I believe is still the most up-to-date happening in this matter.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 8/29/2023 at 8:47 AM, mikew said:

BTW it was a pleasure to see you speak at the meeting in Algonquin.

Likewise.