Jump to content

Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban


POAT54
 Share

Recommended Posts

I did not see this listed, so for discussion;

Blair Holt AWB

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging a prohibition in Cook County against the possession, acquisition, gifting, transfer or carrying of so-called “assault weapons.”

 

 

https://www.saf.org/saf-challenges-assault-weapon-ban-in-cook-county-illinois/

 

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Complaint.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. ban
  • Molly B. pinned this topic

I have an Amazon Smile acct set up to donate to the Second amendment Foundation. If I have to use Amazon for something at least a small token goes in the correct direction.

I would encourage folks to send a little something their way when they can. The 2AF is doing great work without anywhere near the funding of the anti gun industry,   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2021 at 11:51 PM, Euler said:

 

There's a link in the opening post for the complaint.

The complaint acknowledges past decisions at the state and at the 7th Circuit upholding semiauto bans but asserts that these were wrongly decided.

 

The hard part will be getting the Supreme Court to grant cert. Well, that and getting the Court to find in favor of the good guys. That may be more likely now that it was pre-2017. It would help a lot to have a circuit split on this issue, which a victory at the 7th Circuit would provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2021 at 8:37 AM, Hap said:

The complaint acknowledges past decisions at the state and at the 7th Circuit upholding semiauto bans but asserts that these were wrongly decided.

 

The hard part will be getting the Supreme Court to grant cert. Well, that and getting the Court to find in favor of the good guys. That may be more likely now that it was pre-2017. It would help a lot to have a circuit split on this issue, which a victory at the 7th Circuit would provide.


We should keep in mind that there are several or even more AWB laws that are being challenged in our court system across the country in several circuit courts.

 

At least one or two will make it to the Supreme Court petitioning for Cert. long before this case ever makes it to the first appellate court.

 

The whole point of filing this case, as well as many others that are being filed in other states right now is that even if SCOTUS rules in our favor in another AWB case. We still have to challenge the law in every other state that is different from the state that was being challenged and decided by SCOTUS.

 

Example… The current NY case that will be heard by SCOTUS on the “need” or “showing cause” requirement to get a LTC in New York, Even when SCOTUS rules against New York and invalidates their LTC law, or portions of it. Those in the other 7 states that require a person to show cause will have to challenge their state laws, before they will be invalidated as well. The lower courts will invalidate them, and those cases won’t ever get appealed because the case was allready decided by SCOTUS. Sometimes, although it has been rare, a state will change their unconstitutional law, before a legal suit has been filed.

 

It is this reason, that new lawsuits for challenging “show cause” for LTC have been refiled in New Jersey, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, etc… even though prior suits have lost and been denied cert. for basically the same reason.

 

Multiple suits filed in multiple courts across the country and in many different states in many different circuits is a Legal Strategy used to fight unconstitutional laws. One additional reason this is done, is that the challenge over a unconstitutional law may appear to be the same. It’s not. Every state writes their AWB or LTC laws slightly different. As well as the facts around each case are different as well. When SCOTUS looks at cases to review they are looking for specific details in the case as well. Including the briefs of each side. When you look at these cases, while their is one main litigant, you will notice that 99% of the time, they are joined by multiple litigants as well. This is done to help keep the case alive if one or more of the litigants is found or ruled not to have any “standing” or not found to have “cause”.

 

Think about this. Why did SCOTUS deny cert on two cases, on the needing “good cause” requirement to get a LTC for Maryland and New Jersey,  but ultimately decided to take approve cert for the New York LTC case. It’s because of how each state wrote their laws, the litigants, the facts around those cases, and the arguments each side made along the way. Mostly though IMHO New York was chosen because of the way their laws were written, and the REASON they initiated showing “good cause” need which started I believe in 1922. Makes it easier for the Supreme Court to rule against them. (IMHO)
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that they are working with the Firearm Policy Coalition on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban
  • 9 months later...

I took the time to peruse Cook County's answer, and it seems that many of their counterarguments are simply , "County Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph" or something along those lines.

 

I...don't understand their strategy. These answers seem inappropriate and flippant.

Viramontes_v_Cook_County_Answer.pdf

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing read like a 5 year denying getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.    I think their strategy was to ride on the coat tail of prior rulings in Wilson and Friedman, but both of those cases were used intermediate scrutiny which basically gets invalided by Bruen,

Edited by RANDY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 4:41 PM, RANDY said:

The whole thing read like a 5 year denying getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.    I think their strategy was to ride on the coat tail of prior rulings in Wilson and Friedman, but both of those cases were used intermediate scrutiny which basically gets invalided by Bruen,

It's pretty much a boilerplate approach to answering complaints.  Standard operating procedure for most defense attorneys in civil litigation.  Here's where I have a problem:

 

"29. Rifles built on an AR-style platform are a paradigmatic example of the type of arm Cook County bans. AR-15 rifles, for example, are among the most popular firearms in the nation, and they are owned by millions of Americans. ANSWER: County Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph."

 

That defendants are allowed to deny clearly accurate facts while certifying under oath that their answers are true to the best of their information, knowledge and belief, without any repercussions whatsoever, makes me want to vomit.  They know this to be true.  Yet, here they are, denying obvious fact under oath.  Insurance company lawyers are allowed to blanketly deny every single allegation in a motor vehicle accident complaint when they (claim) they can't get the answers from their insured, even though they have the reports and know at least a good portion of the complaint is true.  How is it that, so long as you are a rich and powerful entity such as a county government or insurance company, you are allowed to blatantly commit perjury to a court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...