Jump to content

Special Session & Semi-auto ban


Tvandermyde
 Share

Recommended Posts

The talk is heating up about the delayed special session on abortion now being used to talk about guns and getting a mag ban, semi-auto ban and more passed. 

HB-5522 and SB2510 appear to be a couple of vehicles for this. 

 

At this point with New York being handed down, while I am inclined to testify and point out some highlights of the egregious points of the bill, I am les inclined to go into great details about its flaws. My belief is if they are going to jam this down our throats, then lets see the most god awful pi$$ poor written garbage they can coble together. It makes it better to fight in court and they can't be running back to session to keep amending the same law intime for the Court to review it. 

Screw them -- that's all I can get away with saying here. But My reading of New York is none of this passes muster and we just work on flooding them with good well written pleadings based upon sound legal basis with good competent counsel. We are in for the war not just the skirmish.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end, it would be a net benefit for us to get bad laws struck by the court. It permanently closes future avenues for gun control in a way that they can't get around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 3:45 PM, THE KING said:

Todd, I agree.  Let them step in the pile of **** with both feet. 

 

I wouldn't educate them at all.  

 

I'm curious how this intersects with Viramontes v. Cook County, should something be passed out of the General Assembly.

 

If we file a lawsuit, what sort of affect does that have on Viramontes and would both cases need to be consolidated? Would one supercede the other? If Viramontes is somehow decided during or soon after something (potentially) gets passed, what happens to any (potential) Illinois AWB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 4:03 PM, vk60187 said:

What is the latest on that lawsuit you mentioned?  Looks like the Court has refused to rule in that, right?

I'm not certain. The latest filing, according to this link, was back in late 2021:

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/viramontes

 

I'm not aware of any additional action thus far, but I expect someone (probably the FPC most likely) to sooner or later file an amended complaint citing Bruen and maybe even Bianchi v. Frosh should the courts act on that particular case in the meantime.

 

I don't claim any insider knowledge (because I possess none) but it wouldn't surprise me if the FPC is presently drafting that very complaint as we speak. Takes time, though, and they have a lot on their plate.

 

What do you think, Texasgrillchef?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 2:45 PM, Tvandermyde said:

The talk is heating up about the delayed special session on abortion now being used to talk about guns and getting a mag ban, semi-auto ban and more passed. 

HB-5522 and SB2510 appear to be a couple of vehicles for this. 

 

At this point with New York being handed down, while I am inclined to testify and point out some highlights of the egregious points of the bill, I am les inclined to go into great details about its flaws. My belief is if they are going to jam this down our throats, then lets see the most god awful pi$$ poor written garbage they can coble together. It makes it better to fight in court and they can't be running back to session to keep amending the same law intime for the Court to review it. 

Screw them -- that's all I can get away with saying here. But My reading of New York is none of this passes muster and we just work on flooding them with good well written pleadings based upon sound legal basis with good competent counsel. We are in for the war not just the skirmish.

 

Can we get links to the current bills?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 4:17 PM, THE KING said:

Thank you!
I feel the urge to let my senator and congress person that they forgot the bolt action handguns with high capacity mags. 
But I will stay quiet for now…. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion Illlinois will be Illiniois and push through yet more unconstitutional laws since they are never held personally liable, it's going to take lawsuits, and my hope is that even the lower courts recognize that it's almost a slam dunk unconstitutional law and suspend enforcement while the lawsuits progress up the chain.  This is clearly a enumerated civil rights issue now, the courts best recognize it as such if they want to retain any credibility.

 

But, then again we are living in a clown world where the Executive and Legislative branches have for all intents declared war on the Judicial branch.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 6:05 PM, Flynn said:

I'm of the opinion Illlinois will be Illiniois and push through yet more unconstitutional laws since they are never held personally liable, it's going to take lawsuits, and my hope is that even the lower courts recognize that it's almost a slam dunk unconstitutional law and suspend enforcement while the lawsuits progress up the chain.  This is clearly a enumerated civil rights issue now, the courts best recognize it as such if they want to retain any credibility.

 

But, then again we are living in a clown world where the Executive and Legislative branches have for all intents declared war on the Judicial branch.

 

I mentioned something along these lines in the 2nd amendment law forum, that most federal judges likely don't care much about guns one way or another and will likely say, "it's outta my hands" and leave it at that.

 

One of the possible unintended consequences of the text/history standard is that it requires just enough work on the part of the courts that some judges are just gonna take the easy road and strike these laws down. They won't want to spend the time required to engage in a detailed historical analysis (complete with verifiable citations!) when it would be much easier to dismiss the government's claims as "insufficient" or "not applicable" in the same way the Supreme Court did with New York's historical references.

 

The alternative, while perhaps tempting to some, simply has too many potential downsides: A successful petition for cert followed by reversal; the establishment of a negative precedent; and so on. Is it worth it to these judges to screw their own side for a Pyrrhic victory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don’t see how AWBs are upheld under the new standard of review (and this court). My big fear is the state will not grandfather magazines and then gun owners are stuck offloading “high capacity” magazines in between passage of the law and scotus getting around to striking down the cases currently with the circuit courts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 7:35 PM, Matt B said:

Yeah I don’t see how AWBs are upheld under the new standard of review (and this court). My big fear is the state will not grandfather magazines and then gun owners are stuck offloading “high capacity” magazines in between passage of the law and scotus getting around to striking down the cases currently with the circuit courts. 

 

If history (even recent) is any indicator, you will likey see a lot more boating accidents, gopher holes, or simply moving them out of state to a freind & family location vs unloading.

 

As I noted, I would expect even a lower court that is not totally corrupt to suspend enforcment almost immediately, due to it being a clearly defined civil rights issue by the standing SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I read this correctly then for example they want us to only have 10 round mags?  Just asking because I just traded in some hand guns to my FFL and bought a new Springfield hellcat which came with an 11 round and 13 round mag.  I’m assuming these are legal for the moment, but sounds like I’d be required to get California compliant mags if I’m reading correctly?  I guess 10 is only one less than 11.  Gotta love how they want to make our lives fun.

 

 Too bad to because apparently Springfield has a promo that you get a range bag and 2 15 round mags.  I hope that if these laws pass that they get struck down immediately.  

Edited by illinois_buckeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could be looking at a watershed moment here.  The aforementioned clown world where the Executive and Legislative branches are at war with the Judicial branch might come to a boiling point over this.  I don't see the heavily blue states suddenly saying, "Awww, man, the courts are right, we can't pass or enforce these laws."  They've come to the conclusion that they are above both the Constitution and SCOTUS and will do anything in their power to keep it that way.  They'll drag everyone kicking and screaming through the courts for as long as possible, and even then may not stop.

 

In an emergency a special session, does it take a simple majority to pass things or a 3/5 vote?  Do they have the votes to pass this stuff?

Edited by EdDinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any ban should mandate any movie released in the past 100 years that includes a firearm be immediately removed from media content and reparations be paid back to the survivors of people violence using firearms. 

 

Also any further media productions whether it be TV or movie shall include no firearms use including law enforcement as all media should be clean and free of firearms.

 

If this criteria is not met any proposed legislation should be immediately stricken from the record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 1:31 AM, markthesignguy said:

how many representatives that have jumped onto HB5522 are lame ducks?

 

 

77 Willis is one...

16 Stoneback

 

 

 

 

How many are from downstate? Unless you consider Peoria "downstate"....as of yesterday evening, only one.

 

From St. Clair county.

 

One of the two counties in the southern half of the state to vote Biden in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting quote:

 

“For those of us that have been fighting this fight over the past three years this is a real gut punch,” Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly told the Tribune. “And we are genuinely struggling to determine what, if anything, could make the difference in the future.”

 

 

Kind of outright admitting that passing more laws which criminal by definition do not obey would make any difference. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 12:08 PM, Lou said:

An interesting quote:

 

“For those of us that have been fighting this fight over the past three years this is a real gut punch,” Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly told the Tribune. “And we are genuinely struggling to determine what, if anything, could make the difference in the future.”

 

Kind of outright admitting that passing more laws which criminal by definition do not obey would make any difference.

 

What could make a difference is linking ISP's records of Clear & Present Danger reports to FTIP. Supposedly ISP had such reports for Crimo, but they were not referenced when he made his FOID application and firearm purchases. Reports could have been used as the basis to revoke his FOID if he had had one at the time, but he didn't have a FOID at that time, so they were as good as forgotten the moment they were filed.

 

Is this an error in law or an error in procedure? I say "is" because nothing has changed between 2020 and now in this regard. It seems to me that if a danger report is enough to revoke someone's FOID until they demonstrate they're no longer a danger, then it should be enough to deny a FOID application until they demonstrate likewise. To be clear, I still think the FOID application is irrelevant, because the background check for firearm sales is the same background check for a FOID application. If there were no FOID, the danger report would/should have denied the sales. It just didn't do any of that.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 3:08 PM, 2A4Cook said:

I feel no obligation to obey an illegal "law."  

Some things are better off not put online where they live forever. 
 

I’m just thinking of the new NY law (as unconstitutional as it is) where you need to provide 3 years of online content.  
 

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 2:45 PM, Tvandermyde said:


Screw them -- that's all I can get away with saying here. But My reading of New York is none of this passes muster and we just work on flooding them with good well written pleadings based upon sound legal basis with good competent counsel. We are in for the war not just the skirmish.

 


My advice would be to testify, but to not argue semantics when they start arguing that the 2nd amendment is only about muskets.  Tell them their bills won't pass the new level of constitutional scrutiny set in the Bruen decision. Then tell them the 2nd amendment is no longer a second class right. 


If you want to be really bold and throw down the gauntlet, testify that you have extreme confidence that their bill will be nothing more than a temporary speed bump on the way to a full restoration of 2nd amendment rights in IL.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 2:32 PM, Lou said:

Some things are better off not put online where they live forever. 
 

I’m just thinking of the new NY law (as unconstitutional as it is) where you need to provide 3 years of online content.  
 

JMHO

 

That may be interesting how that plays out. There are no governmental logs (official) of online accounts. Would telling them you don't do social media be a disqualifier?

Would making them do their own homework on any accounts you have be on them?

How would the government know who PoonDaddy516 or PEwPEwPOp is on the fishing forum is unless they require admins and ISPs to turn over private data?

 

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...