mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:08 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:08 PM He quotes an op ed by Sharone Mitchel Jr - There is no Second Amendment on the South Side of Chicago. He says that, with 2A sanctuary counties in central and southern Illinois, arrests under an assault weapon ban will affect people of color in non-sanctuary counties the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:10 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:10 PM Todd Vandermyde is now up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:11 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:11 PM He goes back to Heller in 2008, a guarantee of the right to arms unconnected with the military. SCOTUS rejected an interest balancing approach then, in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:15 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:15 PM Bruen, he says, throws strict scrutiny, interest balancing, out the window. He quotes that the state must demonstrate that modern restrictions must demonstrate that their proposals/laws are constant with the history when the 2A was adopted. He tells the anti-gun folks to quit thinking of revoking FOID Cards, that in 18 months he predicts there will be no FOID Card. He calls it a race baiting tactic to justify what they're trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:16 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:16 PM On 9/22/2022 at 12:07 PM, Molly B. said: What are those 4 pillars? https://www.senatorhunter.com/ilbc-pillars Pillar 1: Criminal Justice Reform Pillar Pillar 2: Education and Workforce Development Pillar Pillar 3: Economic Access, Equity and Opportunity Pillar Pillar 4: Health Care and Human Services Pillar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:17 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:17 PM Mr. Vandermyde continues by outlining all the cases SCOTUS recently GVR'd after the NYSRPA case, all the TRO's lower courts have granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:19 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:19 PM He mentions New York's 15% compliance rate on their "assault weapon" ban, asking how the legislature plans on enforcing such a ban if it were to pass one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:20 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:20 PM He suggests they review how many Illinois gun laws will no longer apply in a short period of time, asking how they plan to proceed when that occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:21 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:21 PM Dr. Daniel Webster, previously scheduled to offer testimony, is not present thus concluding the presentations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:22 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:22 PM Representative Windhorst asks Ms. Sances to address the Constitutional issues. She defers to Everytown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:23 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:23 PM Allison, identifying herself as an attorney, claims that Bruen has no effect on Illinois. She is, apparently, not a very good attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:25 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:25 PM Mr Windhorst asks Allision if she's aware of any other right requiring submission of fingerprints. She says she is not, though she did give birth and gave fingerprints at that time. She did not explain how she thought that was at all relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:26 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:26 PM Representative Hirschauer circles back to Gun Dealer Licensing. She asks Ms. Sances about the effectiveness of that law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:28 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:28 PM Ms. Sances says there are now 1,063 dealers licensed by Illinois. She acknowledges that there were more dealers before that Act, and she is glad about that, seeming to confimr that closing gun dealers was their primary goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:30 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:30 PM She says that through July 2022, there have been 7,000+ FOID application denials and a similar number of revocations, claiming that these folks have been prevented from having guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:31 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:31 PM Ms. Hirshauer asks if the well regulated militia clause will come into play, claiming that "we're all Second Amendment" folks. Allison sees no problems with any of our law, existing or proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:33 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:33 PM Ed Sullivan points to court cases that clarify the Second Amendment is an individual right, meaning we don't need opinions within the task force. The courts have spoken. He also states that no gun dealers were closed by action of Gun Dealer Licensing - that they chose to close on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:35 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:35 PM Mr. Vandermyde jumps in to explain to Ms. Hirschauer that the Heller court ruled the 2A as an individual right, not a regulatory scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:37 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:37 PM Dr. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins, a Bloomberg Professor of American Health, is now present and addresses an in person licensing and fingerprint requirements reduce violence. Once again, they beleive their anti-gun desires exist in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:41 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:41 PM I take this as an informational presentation about his research into anti-gun practices that, though once acceptable, are no longer viable options. I could identify it as an interesting history of his movement, though calling it interesting would ignore the repetitive nature of his droning on in Ms. Willis' and Ms. Stoneback's absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:42 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:42 PM Mr. Webster's colleague (Ms. Frederoly?) takes up the torch again on firearm restraining orders, perhaps not aware of the fact that Illinois already has that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:45 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:45 PM She, Frederoly, does offer suggestions to increase the use of FRO's in order to "take advantage of the work the legislature has done", meaning to make it look like a somewhat less failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:53 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 05:53 PM Representative Ford changes the subject, asking what we're doing about individuals who are not violence, but who carry for their own protection without having obtained a carry license. Mr. Vandermyde suggest a probationary scheme similar to that used for drug crimes - an opportunity for diversion. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:00 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:00 PM Back to "assault weapons", Mr. Ford and Dr. Webster both state that we don't want our police officers to be at a disadvantage, as if that sort of interest balancing is still an option for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:02 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:02 PM The task force is adjourned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:15 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:15 PM The take away - they are trying to set the stage to ignore NYSRPA v Bruen as they've largely done with DC V Heller. That isn't going to work out for them. The Heller decision left wiggle room that NYSRPA doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:20 PM Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:20 PM Thanks for the play by play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:51 PM Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 06:51 PM On 9/22/2022 at 12:07 PM, Molly B. said: What are those 4 pillars? Please tell me not the "THE FOUR PILLARS OF WHITE SUPREMACY" Sorry missed the post, the answer is YES that's them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 22, 2022 at 08:13 PM Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 08:13 PM On 9/22/2022 at 12:54 PM, mauserme said: [VR] stresses that due process must be preserved, and that we must revisit our firearm restraining order law in this regard. The elements of due process: An unbiased tribunal. Notice of the proposed action (before the action) and the grounds asserted for it. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses. The right to know opposing evidence. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented. Opportunity to be represented by counsel. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision. Red flag laws lack elements 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. Illinois C&PD lacks all of them. On 9/22/2022 at 1:01 PM, mauserme said: [ES] is addressing clear and present danger, which he agrees with despite it's current lack of due process. ... ISRA has been completely silent on the hundreds/thousands of people who lost their FOIDs, probably improperly, in a process that ISP is now "investigating." Meanwhile, the statute itself is a clear violation of 5th and 6th Amendment rights, and ISRA is not only okay with that, but agrees with it. On 9/22/2022 at 1:23 PM, mauserme said: Allison, identifying herself as an attorney, claims that Bruen has no effect on Illinois. ... Technically it's true for the decision. The case itself was over whether states could require "good cause," which Illinois never did. The rationale for the decision affects Illinois, of course. Until the argument has been applied to things other than "good cause," the argument has not been applied to them. On 9/22/2022 at 1:33 PM, mauserme said: ... [ES] also states that no gun dealers were closed by action of Gun Dealer Licensing - that they chose to close on their own. Usually coercion precludes the ability to consent. I wonder what he thinks of rubber hose confessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 22, 2022 at 08:24 PM Author Share Posted September 22, 2022 at 08:24 PM https://americandigest.com/justice-alito-opens-the-door-to-red-flag-law-challenges/ Justice Alito opens the door to red flag law challenges By Staff Writers on May 19, 2021 In the Supreme Court’s opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, Justice Samuel Alito stated red flag provisions “may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment” — bad news for Democrats hoping to use said red flag laws to seize weapons from American hands. The recent ruling included a unanimous 9-0 decision that declared entering a house without a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. In the case, guns were removed from the home, a ruling condemned in the decision. Alito noted, “This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some States are now enacting.” He added, “These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. They typically specify the standard that must be met and the procedures that must be followed before firearms may be seized.” Alito concluded, “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us.” ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.