Jump to content

Illinois General Assembly 1/10/2023


mauserme

Recommended Posts

Either meier didnt read the bill or is asking questions the bill already answers for purposes of record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:15 PM, jrkleins said:

Perfect example of why we need term limits at the state level, as well as the federal level!

What she just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in her rambling, incoherent response was she even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award her no points, and may God have mercy on her soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:17 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Isra prematurely sends a message saying the bill is on the way to the govs deak. While we know that is the outcome, they havent voted yet. 

 

I do not believe it would  be called for final debate if they didn't have the votes.  They have members  who are in charge of keeping track of yeas vs nays.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:19 PM, Helpdesk9 said:

What she just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in her rambling, incoherent response was she even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award her no points, and may God have mercy on her soul.

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This testimony can be used for legislative intent, in the event there is a question as to what the legislature wanted to do when they passed the legislation. It's largely irrelevant in this case, because there is no historical precedent for any of their garbage. So the Court will never reach the issue of legislative intent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:21 PM, cybermgk said:

OOC, does anyone know.  Can this discourse be used in any court cases?  Where Senate admitted it won't solve the problem, or here where they admit no penalty for using one in a crime (well extra).  All is prima facie evidence they just want to grab guns

Legislative intent has been used in past court cases, will it be used in court cases surrounding this topic will depend on the approach of the legal team and the questions that have to be addressed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:24 PM, bmyers said:

Legislative intent has been used in past court cases, will it be used in court cases surrounding this topic will depend on the approach of the legal team and the questions that have to be addressed. 

It's still helpful though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:21 PM, cybermgk said:

OOC, does anyone know.  Can this discourse be used in any court cases?  Where Senate admitted it won't solve the problem, or here where they admit no penalty for using one in a crime (well extra).  All is prima facie evidence they just want to grab guns

 

What Harmon said last night could be used against the law in a brief.  Especially the part where he said the SCOTUS was muddled and missed a large chunk of the 2nd.  I don't think most would use it in oral arguments, but it could be done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:25 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

What Harmon said last night could be used against the law in a brief.  Especially the part where he said the SCOTUS was muddled and missed a large chunk of the 2nd.  I don't think most would use it in oral arguments, but it could be done.

 

How to piss off SCOTUS in one easy step

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:21 PM, cybermgk said:

OOC, does anyone know.  Can this discourse be used in any court cases?  Where Senate admitted it won't solve the problem, or here where they admit no penalty for using one in a crime (well extra).  All is prima facie evidence they just want to grab guns

 

 

On 1/10/2023 at 2:24 PM, bmyers said:

Legislative intent has been used in past court cases, will it be used in court cases surrounding this topic will depend on the approach of the legal team and the questions that have to be addressed. 

“While interest balancing is no longer a valid reason to uphold gun laws, be it known that both the senate and house sponsors of this law admitted it won’t achieve any of their desired goals regarding violence reduction and also expressed disdain for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, thus purposely undermining the authority of the court for personal agenda needs instead of the law of the land”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 2:25 PM, mauserme said:

Representative Caulkins urges the body to vote no, to come back next month to do something that will really address the violence problem.

 

 

 

Most of the violence is in Chicago.  The POC caucus will never support to a bill that throws their voters in jail.  That is why there are no penalties in this bill other than for us law abiding folks that just want to be left alone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan to close. Vote immenent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2023 at 1:23 PM, mauserme said:

Posting requirements were just waived on HR1043 Support Victims/Gun Violence.  It will be heard in the Executive Committee today.

 

 

 

It sure would be a shame if someone brought up this stat: Twice as many people died from opioids than gun violence in 2022, Cook County reports (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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