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

  • 2 weeks later...

Looks like Cook County filed a motion for extension of time to September 15, 2022:

According to Cook, the plaintiffs agreed to extend until August 15th, but no later. We'll have to see what the court says, but I'll also be interested in any counter motions the plaintiffs file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be interesting to see what their 'expert' comes up with, I expect nothing less than some epic mental gymnastics or attempting to apply 20th and 21st century laws as being historical context.

 

One thing I do think will be interesting is that many of the early gun 'regulations' (not that there were many) but just the same the few that did exist were in new territories not states and enacted by local law authorities that basically did whatever they did basically unchecked, thus their application as applicable to the US and constitution is flimsy at best, but I expect them to try and use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 9:32 PM, Flynn said:

Should be interesting to see what their 'expert' comes up with, I expect nothing less than some epic mental gymnastics or attempting to apply 20th and 21st century laws as being historical context.

 

One thing I do think will be interesting is that many of the early gun 'regulations' (not that there were many) but just the same the few that did exist were in new territories not states and enacted by local law authorities that basically did whatever they did basically unchecked, thus their application as applicable to the US and constitution is flimsy at best, but I expect them to try and use them.

 

I agree, they'll likely glom onto whatever historical examples they can find, no matter how tenuous.

 

What the plaintiffs need to emphasize is that the Bruen majority rejected most (maybe all?) of New York's examples as invalid, and I believe their reasoning was, in essence, "whatever examples you use have to have been widely adopted by the states; merely pointing to a few rare examples here and there is insufficient."

 

The plaintiffs will also want to hire their own experts who can really drive that point home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 10:32 PM, Flynn said:

...

One thing I do think will be interesting is that many of the early gun 'regulations' (not that there were many) but just the same the few that did exist were in new territories not states and enacted by local law authorities ...

 

There's always the Tombstone deadly weapon ban. That worked so well that movies have been made about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 10:28 PM, Euler said:

 

There's always the Tombstone deadly weapon ban. That worked so well that movies have been made about it.

 

Yes a famous failed example that I'm sure will come up, but that was in 1881, so even if it's applied at all, it would be a very weak secondary consideration under Bruen as it was much later, it was one of a kind, it was an ordinance in a territory and it just mandated a permit to carry in town, not real applicable to this case.

 

Quote

As we recognized in Heller itself, because post-Civil War discussions of the right to keep and bear arms “took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources.” 554 U. S., at 614; cf. Sprint Communications Co., 554 U. S., at 312 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (“The belated innovations of the mid- to late-19th-century courts come too late to provide insight into the meaning of [the Constitution in 1787]”). And we made clear in Gamble that Heller’s interest in mid- to late-19th-century commentary was secondary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens in several other cases over AWB’s will have impact on this case far sooner.

 

The biggest one is Bianchi v Frosh which was GVR’d at the SCOTUS level to Maryland and the 3rd circuit.

 

Along with Miller v Bonta and Rupp V Bonta. We will probably get some word on Miller v Bonta long before the other two. Seems like the FPC is trying to rush through that one while Bonta is attempting to slow it down. We shall see though.

 

None the less though… those cases will in some degree have an impact or influence the rest of the AWB lawsuits nationwide.

 

If one of them makes it back to SCOTUS. Especially Bianchi v Frosh. It won’t make SCOTUS very happy. Which actually would be the best case scenario. They won’t be able to GVR it again without issuing a mandate along with it.

 

There are many out there that are thinking now with Bruen things will start dropping like dominoes. Eventually they are… just don’t expect it to be soon or a fast process.

 

Juat imagine watching dominoes fall in slow motion video. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

On July 7, Cook County requested, and was granted, an extension to update their case due to "rapidly-evolving circumstances" (i.e., Bruen). They intend to produce an expert on firearms history who will substantiate the historical context of the AWB. Previously Cook County had until July 15. Now it has until September 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 2:01 PM, Euler said:

On July 7, Cook County requested, and was granted, an extension to update their case due to "rapidly-evolving circumstances" (i.e., Bruen). They intend to produce an expert on firearms history who will substantiate the historical context of the AWB. Previously Cook County had until July 15. Now it has until September 15.


Wondering how they will do that. That have to keep it historical in context with the times of 1791 for the 2A. And 1868 for the 14th. He is going to be hard pressed to do that without sounding racist. 
 

Until the AWB came along. There no class of firearms banned by our government.

The had sensitive places maybe, such as whole towns. But let’s keep in mind that those whole towns were NOT in any area that was officially a state at the time, and were only in Territories of the USA. Big difference, and even Thomas has said so. 

 

It’s one of the rains Thomas wrote the Bruen opinion like he did, and the other 5 justices voted with him on TTH being limited in Scope to 1791 and 1868. They knew very little gun laws existed at the time, and those that were, were very limited in scope.

 

Also people didn’t challenge the constitutionality of a law to the same level we do today as well.

 

They think they have an argument but they don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  From another thread:

On 8/8/2022 at 9:22 PM, Euler said:

Today, Chicago filed its supplemental brief on how the Bruen decision would affect the ban on laser sights. It basically says that laser sights are not covered by the Second Amendment, because they are not themselves arms and because they are features or accessories that are not required for the functioning of arms. Also they're scary. ... [Y]ou can see how similar arguments might be used to prohibit "assault weapons" (or anything else) by accessory or feature.

 

You don't need a pistol grip for a weapon to work. A traditional stock works fine.

You don't need a detachable magazine for a weapon to work. A fixed magazine works fine.

You don't need a flash hider or compensator for a weapon to work. A bare muzzle works fine.

Etc.

 

"Assault weapons" would be a different case, of course, but you can see how Chicago is trying to establish a new basis for existing bans. I doubt that Chicago is the only place that it's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting they say laser sights are not protected as that appears to go against the plain language of Heller that says the 2nd extends to "to all instruments that constitute bearable arms"

 

If an argument like that prevails one could argue a rifle or pistol need not be able to fire at all, as it could be used as a blunt object in self defense, I don't see the SCOTUS falling for that too clever by half nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/13/2022 at 8:23 PM, Hap said:

There was one bit of entertainment when the judge asked whether the parties might be interested in working out a settlement. I wish there had been video of their facial expressions.

I'm curious how that would work, as Cook County will never agree to repeal the ban, and the plaintiffs will simply appeal to the appellate courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 1:36 AM, MrTriple said:

I'm curious how that would work, as Cook County will never agree to repeal the ban, and the plaintiffs will simply appeal to the appellate courts.

 

I could only imagine a settlement being something where Cook County allows "assault weapons" with some conditions: like a Ruger Mini-14 is okay, but an AR-15 is not; or any semi-auto rifle is okay, but magazine size for the previously proscribed rifles is limited to 5 rounds. I'm pretty sure neither side is open to that kind of compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 1:24 AM, Euler said:

 

I could only imagine a settlement being something where Cook County allows "assault weapons" with some conditions: like a Ruger Mini-14 is okay, but an AR-15 is not; or any semi-auto rifle is okay, but magazine size for the previously proscribed rifles is limited to 5 rounds. I'm pretty sure neither side is open to that kind of compromise.

Precisely, especially considering that the plaintiffs will simply keep suing until the courts declare the entire ban unconstitutional.

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...