Jump to content

Special Session & Semi-auto ban


Tvandermyde
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/10/2022 at 8:14 AM, GTX63 said:

 

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?

 

Call me a cynic or more of a realist but my impression of the law NY passed is this:

You have to make an appointment for an in-person interview for some (unqualified) examiner to judge your "character."  Wait time to get an interview?  What's the over/under for 18-24 months?

What are the qualifications does this interviewer have?   My guess - patronage worker who owes his job to an anti-gun politician.

Who will be reviewing the past three years of your social media posts and what are their qualifications or criteria for saying what is suitable to the state?  See above.

 

End result is a NY carry permit will be more restricted than it currently is and it will take 2-3 years for it to make its way to SCOTUS to be slapped down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 10:19 AM, Lou said:

 

What are the qualifications does this interviewer have?   My guess - patronage worker who owes his job to an anti-gun politician.

Who will be reviewing the past three years of your social media posts and what are their qualifications or criteria for saying what is suitable to the state?  See above.

 

 

 

Unfortunately I have to deny your permit. You posted a meme mocking the use of LGTB pronouns and that is classified as bullying.  

Edited by Dumak_from_arfcom
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2022 at 11:08 AM, 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. 
 

 

If Assault Weapons are weapons of war, the police should be banned from using them.  Why is the life of a police officer more important than the life of any other law abiding citizen? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 11:09 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I've often wondered how the democrats can seemingly find a federal judge who within hours will strike down a law or EO and issue a nation wide stay, but for us it takes years and years. 

 

Easy.  Democrat-appointed "judges" are corrupt idealogues who ignore the law and can be counted upon to rule in favor of the Democrat agenda, law and constitution be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 11:39 AM, Tvandermyde said:

you have no idea the things I want to say in committee, it has crossed my mind to show up with a box of bananas and when they ask what they are for, if you want to act like a banana republic I just thought you should look the part

 

Sure I get that, but I'm suggesting more of a paradigm shift in your approach.  Don't think of it as going in on defense, think of it as going in on offense. For the first time, you no longer have to defend your position, they have to defend their position on how their bills don't violate the constitution test.  

They are going to do what they always do.. roll out cliches, misinfo, hyperbole, and gaslight. 

Don't bother engaging them in that nonsense and arguing over who needs an AR15. Just tell them they must be unaware that things have changed and their bills won't survive new scrutiny set by the SCOTUS. If they defy the Supreme Court it will cost the state a lot of money when the state has to pay legal fees to the organizations that will be bringing the lawsuits.   If they want meaningful reform that will save lives while not infringing on the Constitution we are here to listen, but any infringements will face a lawsuit and the highest court in the land made it clear that the 2nd amendment is no longer a second class right - gun ownership is now a civil right with constitutional scrutiny of the court behind it. 

I bet most of them have no idea regarding the new standard of scrutiny.  The media sure didn't have a clue, I bet Springfield doesn't as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 2:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Sure I get that, but I'm suggesting more of a paradigm shift in your approach.  Don't think of it as going in on defense, think of it as going in on offense. For the first time, you no longer have to defend your position, they have to defend their position on how their bills don't violate the constitution test.  

They are going to do what they always do.. roll out cliches, misinfo, hyperbole, and gaslight. 

Don't bother engaging them in that nonsense and arguing over who needs an AR15. Just tell them they must be unaware that things have changed and their bills won't survive new scrutiny set by the SCOTUS. If they defy the Supreme Court it will cost the state a lot of money when the state has to pay legal fees to the organizations that will be bringing the lawsuits.   If they want meaningful reform that will save lives while not infringing on the Constitution we are here to listen, but any infringements will face a lawsuit and the highest court in the land made it clear that the 2nd amendment is no longer a second class right - gun ownership is now a civil right with constitutional scrutiny of the court behind it. 

I bet most of them have no idea regarding the new standard of scrutiny.  The media sure didn't have a clue, I bet Springfield doesn't as well.  

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 2:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Sure I get that, but I'm suggesting more of a paradigm shift in your approach.  Don't think of it as going in on defense, think of it as going in on offense. For the first time, you no longer have to defend your position, they have to defend their position on how their bills don't violate the constitution test.  

They are going to do what they always do.. roll out cliches, misinfo, hyperbole, and gaslight. 

Don't bother engaging them in that nonsense and arguing over who needs an AR15. Just tell them they must be unaware that things have changed and their bills won't survive new scrutiny set by the SCOTUS. If they defy the Supreme Court it will cost the state a lot of money when the state has to pay legal fees to the organizations that will be bringing the lawsuits.   If they want meaningful reform that will save lives while not infringing on the Constitution we are here to listen, but any infringements will face a lawsuit and the highest court in the land made it clear that the 2nd amendment is no longer a second class right - gun ownership is now a civil right with constitutional scrutiny of the court behind it. 

I bet most of them have no idea regarding the new standard of scrutiny.  The media sure didn't have a clue, I bet Springfield doesn't as well.  

 

On 7/10/2022 at 5:04 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly!

Yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 5:04 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly!

Don't forget to remind them of Viramontes v. Cook County.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 2:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I bet most of them have no idea regarding the new standard of scrutiny.  The media sure didn't have a clue, I bet Springfield doesn't as well.  

Yup. I’ve seen virtually no acknowledgement of the new standard of review by anti gun groups in any mainstream media articles following Bruen. The most I saw was one comment from Brady that this does give second amendment activists “more ammunition” to challenge bans. But by and large they seem in the dark or otherwise don’t care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 8:02 PM, Matt B said:

Yup. I’ve seen virtually no acknowledgement of the new standard of review by anti gun groups in any mainstream media articles following Bruen. The most I saw was one comment from Brady that this does give second amendment activists “more ammunition” to challenge bans. But by and large they seem in the dark or otherwise don’t care.

 

I think there remains tremendous ignorance not only of Bruen, but prior rulings as well. The fact that so many on their side are acting like business as usual is proof positive of this (the fact that Pritzker would even use the old musket argument is downright embarrassing). In fact, I recall one gubernatorial candidate in Maryland criticizing the decision to drop the good cause requirement. I mean, what world is that guy living in that he doesn't know this?

 

But this also suggests an important litigation strategy. No judge can know everything about every subject, and guns are still a sort of specialty in the courts (or so I would assume, I'm not a lawyer). That means it's critically important for gun rights groups to effectively and concisely convey their arguments in court and to effectively dismantle whatever arguments the government puts forth.

 

Cook County, for example, is gonna try bringing in an "expert" to argue (presumably) that their AWB is A-OK and "based in history". Alright, let them do that. But the plaintiff's attorneys need a solid strategy to dismantle his arguments and show the court why they're wrong. Stuff like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Can you point to a period of history around the time the 2A was ratified in which either the federal or local governments limited what kind of small arms civilians had and/or if they had to be registered under threat of criminal penalties? No? Well then their is no historical pretext until much later on, which is in direct conflict with Bruen and therefor what you propose has been deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land,  . . .

Edited by Molly B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 10:59 AM, Molly B. said:

They will call special session only when they are sure they have the votes.  Currently, they do not have the votes.

 

Can you clarify on how many votes they'd need to get this passed? Is there a way it can happen with just a majority or is it still 3/5ths?

 

Assuming they can't get the votes are we safe until the regular session starts up in January?

 

Hopefully either the MD or CA case gets some more traction before then.

 

Or maybe this is a blessing in disguise, the 7th circuit (includes IL) has a 7-3 conservative majority. Post Bruen I can't see them not striking this down. 

 

 

Edited by imagineallthekarma
Additional Info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 3:51 PM, countyline said:

The initial reason for a special session was for the abortion issue, do they have to post the agenda for a special session or can they just bring it up?

This is Illinois.  The rules are whatever they say they are 🥶.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 5:59 PM, sctman800 said:

That is correct as long as the democrats are doing it.

And, that's just it.  Now, since they have lost control of SCOTUS for the first time in over half a century and the Court is rendering rulings they do not agree with, the Dems have gone (even further) rogue, and essentially proclaimed SCOTUS as illegitimate.  Like NY, they will do whatever they damned well feel like doing, with the obvious internal reasoning being, "what can the Supreme Court actually DO to us if we flip them the bird?"  And, with these totalitarians being in charge of every aspect of the federal government, the answer to that is, "absolutely nothing."  NOBODY is enforcing any laws the Dems do not agree with, or they are selectively enforcing laws only against the Dems' political opponents.  Let's face it:  we're living in a pseudo-USSR at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to quote here..lol..

2ACook...Now, since they have lost control of SCOTUS for the first time in over half a century and the Court is rendering rulings they do not agree with.

 

Look at how these judges are going against the states on abortion. They still want to control the issues., no consequences for them if they don't follow SCOTUS.

Edited by Sweeper13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2022 at 8:08 AM, Sweeper13 said:

Trying to quote here..lol..

2ACook...Now, since they have lost control of SCOTUS for the first time in over half a century and the Court is rendering rulings they do not agree with.

 

Look at how these judges are going against the states on abortion. They still want to control the issues., no consequences for them if they don't follow SCOTUS.

They were going against the stats on abortion BECAUSE when they did, there was 2SCOTUS  precedents, Roe V Wade and the later one based on Roe V Wade.

 

THat precedent is also gone now.

 

Only if they do so NOW, after the overturning of those 2 precedents, would your argument, imho, hold water.

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...