Jump to content

Hearing today in central Illinois

techgeek

By techgeek,
in Illinois Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's the Attorney Thomas DeVore lawsuit in Effingham county, 800 plaintiffs representing 87 counties, emergency hearing for a temporary restraining order.

 

Complaint For Declaratory Judgement  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KLcWfHKjqFtNnCv61Yd-a91rjSIys8Cf/view

Motion for Preliminary Injunction https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KNKpjVZ0XatMkTWcT01RrYhx6_rLKybf/view

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KTinPEotRvg7SxwmHGwOv9z2jJfYsy4i/view

 

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRE Member

MRE

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2023 at 3:24 PM, Evil Porkchop said:

Is it bad I'm nervous about what the judge's ruling will be...


Based on the arguments being made by Counselor DeVore in this case, I wouldn’t read too much into it. My guess is that the local judge grants the motion, and it’s eventually overturned. As previously said above, this case is mostly trying to use procedural arguments, not Constitutional ones. 

 

More attention is due the other cases being filed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spec5 Member

spec5

Posted
Posted (edited)

From what I understood they were going after was that the first reading of the bill that was voted on had nothing to do with the final bill so the actual bill purpose being voted on only had two readings and not three. This was normal under Madigan and it shouldn't be considered the norm. 

Edited by spec5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GunCollector Member

GunCollector

Posted
Posted

I watched WGN news at 6:30PM today and they interviewed a Kent Law School professor on the Effingham case.  Unfortunately he really didn't comment on the case, instead gave a speech on the lawlessness of the sheriff's who are refusing to enforce the law.  Basically said how disgraceful it is, how they can't pick and choose etc.  I don't think it educated anyone but it did make the sheriff's look bad, and probably didn't help the collective in the court of public opinion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/18/2023 at 7:12 PM, oneshot said:

Has the topic of sanctuary cities for "undocumented" immigrants ever come into these conversations? 🤔

 

I brought that up on Twitter along with marijuana, they screamed up and down that's different because they literally believe the state has the authority to ignore federal law but the sheriffs don't, the analogy goes right over their heads.  And you can't reason with them at all, you can't even try to debate them as the minute you do they just start sceaming you are MAGA Cult, and no that is not sarcasm.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2023 at 6:59 PM, GunCollector said:

I watched WGN news at 6:30PM today and they interviewed a Kent Law School professor on the Effingham case.  Unfortunately he really didn't comment on the case, instead gave a speech on the lawlessness of the sheriff's who are refusing to enforce the law.  Basically said how disgraceful it is, how they can't pick and choose etc.  I don't think it educated anyone but it did make the sheriff's look bad, and probably didn't help the collective in the court of public opinion.

 

Who cares what that dweeb says. This is more important than what a pencil neck thinksC7C9314D-83FE-408F-B067-42D57BDC263A.thumb.jpeg.7ce5a5019fa91de2c229e5c8e2a9e778.jpegif it was just a few, yeah, maybe a valid argument. But that’s not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/18/2023 at 7:47 PM, lilguy said:

We need a unconstitutional decision on  the AWB. anything else is just static.

Yes this may give us some breathing room. With out a last highest court unconstitutional ruling we are no where, The Supremes have just kicked  it down the road to lower courts.Frustrating.

 

 

I 100% agree we need Bruen precedent gun rulings, but this case has merits.  If this case was/is to prevail it could get rid of the shell games the state plays with bills, I would LOVE to see the courts rule that gutting a bill and entirely replacing the text and entire subject matter after it's been voted upon and still counting that previous votes is invalid.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2023 at 7:53 PM, Flynn said:

 

I 100% agree we nee Bruen precedent gun rulings, but this case has merits.  If this case was/is to prevail it could get rid of the shell games the state plays with bills, I would LOVE to see the courts rule that gutting a bill and entirely replacing the text and entire subject matter after it's been voted upon and still counting that previous votes is invalid.  

Are they hanging their hat on section d, paragraph 2?
  

SECTION 8. PASSAGE OF BILLS
    (a)  The enacting clause of the laws of this State shall
be: "Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly."
    (b)  The General Assembly shall enact laws only by bill.
Bills may originate in either house, but may be amended or
rejected by the other.
    (c)  No bill shall become a law without the concurrence
of a majority of the members elected to each house. Final
passage of a bill shall be by record vote. In the Senate at
the request of two members, and in the House at the request
of five members, a record vote may be taken on any other
occasion. A record vote is a vote by yeas and nays entered on
the journal.
    (d)  A bill shall be read by title on three different
days in each house. A bill and each amendment thereto shall
be reproduced and placed on the desk of each member before
final passage.
    Bills, except bills for appropriations and for the
codification, revision or rearrangement of laws, shall be
confined to one subject. Appropriation bills shall be limited
to the subject of appropriations.
    A bill expressly amending a law shall set forth
completely the sections amended.
    The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate shall sign each bill that passes both
houses to certify that the procedural requirements for
passage have been met.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/18/2023 at 7:58 PM, mab22 said:

Are they hanging their hat on section d, paragraph 2?

 

I have not read it, the PDF is so big, without shutting down my multi-tasking on my laptop it freezes Chrome and times out when I try loading it, and I have not bothered to read it on it's own outside of Chrome, but I did read a few Tweets that said it was about how it was a shell bill pushed through at the last moment, they could have been entirely wrong but I assumed they were over the target.

 

** Edit*** I just glanced at it, Section 8 is the basis for some claims, others are in Article I, Section 2 in regards to equal protection and due process.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRE Member

MRE

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/18/2023 at 7:53 PM, Flynn said:

 

I 100% agree we need Bruen precedent gun rulings, but this case has merits.  If this case was/is to prevail it could get rid of the shell games the state plays with bills, I would LOVE to see the courts rule that gutting a bill and entirely replacing the text and entire subject matter after it's been voted upon and still counting that previous votes is invalid.


While I agree the “shell bill games” are shady and frustrating, that process has been used for decades by both parties to pass bills. And it’s been unsuccessfully challenged before. It’s not going to succeed in the end, even if a County judge lets it move forward.  I’d say further, but I don’t want to add too much negativity.
 

The other cases are where the rubber will meet the road. 

Edited by MRE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G214me Member

G214me

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2023 at 6:59 PM, GunCollector said:

I watched WGN news at 6:30PM today and they interviewed a Kent Law School professor on the Effingham case.  Unfortunately he really didn't comment on the case, instead gave a speech on the lawlessness of the sheriff's who are refusing to enforce the law.  Basically said how disgraceful it is, how they can't pick and choose etc.  I don't think it educated anyone but it did make the sheriff's look bad, and probably didn't help the collective in the court of public opinion.

 

A Kent Law School professor that can't see the sheriffs are basically doing what the 2nd says, generally acting in accordance with Bruen, upholding the oath they swore, and not wanting to enforce obvious violations of peoples rights. Also the professor must not understand what the Founders meant by all the things they wrote about citizens being armed and what happens to disarmed populations throughout history. Sounds like a great candidate for a Soros funded Attorney General or maybe a SCOTUS justice that doesn't know what a woman is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tricolor Member

tricolor

Posted
Posted

Saw this, check out this excerpt: 

 

The request for a restraining order also faults the Legislature for violating a state Supreme Court ruling that legislation must be confined to a single subject and for violating due process because the bill didn't go through the required three public readings. However, the underlying bill, with language the gun legislation replaced, was read three times, a routine legislative maneuver.

Attorney General Kwame Raoul's lawyers argued the restraining order should be denied in part because the merits of the coming lawsuit will fail in court. The record will show the legislation was read publicly three times, that it covers a single subject — guns — and that the plaintiffs show no evidence that the exemptions for possessing the restricted weapons are doled out unfairly.

"The act’s exceptions for professionals with specialized firearms training and experience, such as law enforcement and members of the military, easily survive rational basis scrutiny," the state's response says.

Pritzker spokesperson Jordan Abudayyeh said the Democrat is confident of its constitutionality. “Despite political grandstanding from those more beholden to the gun lobby than to the safety of their constituents, this law is in effect and protecting Illinoisans from the constant fear of being gunned down in a place of worship, at a parade, or on a street corner," Abudayyeh said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuits-challenge-recent-illinois-semiautomatic-175816095.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah an interesting response since it's dealing with a civil right the Supreme Court has said is not subject to scrutiny, but also the lawsuit's claim is made under the equal protection clause of the IL Constituion not the 2nd, so that muddies the water a bit.

 

But that shows the state still can't let go of the scrutiny argument, that won't help them in the other lawsuits.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
speedbump Member

speedbump

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2023 at 6:59 PM, GunCollector said:

I watched WGN news at 6:30PM today and they interviewed a Kent Law School professor on the Effingham case.  Unfortunately he really didn't comment on the case, instead gave a speech on the lawlessness of the sheriff's who are refusing to enforce the law.  Basically said how disgraceful it is, how they can't pick and choose etc.  I don't think it educated anyone but it did make the sheriff's look bad, and probably didn't help the collective in the court of public opinion.

 

 

Law school professors - and most judges -  hhhhhhate the idea of nullification outside the realm of their pet institutions that are populated and controlled by their minions.  Thomas Jefferson disagreed:  "...a nullification is the rightful remedy" for blatantly unconstitutional acts. 

 

I'll go with Jefferson's opinion over that twit on the proper course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prairie Pucker Member

Prairie Pucker

Posted
Posted
On 1/18/2023 at 7:47 PM, lilguy said:

We need a unconstitutional decision on  the AWB. anything else is just static.

Yes this may give us some breathing room. With out a last highest court unconstitutional ruling we are no where, The Supremes have just kicked  it down the road to lower courts.Frustrating.

 

 

This vid may shed a little more light on what's going on with the Supremes.  It's not as bad as it looks:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/19/2023 at 3:34 PM, sticky22 said:

Devore presents argument against Illinois assault weapon ban, ruling expected Friday (wgem.com)

 

lol "the Springfield way"

Judge Morrison:

 

Morrison also said he was concerned that the new law will harm gun store owners by severely cutting their weapon sales.

“Once a business is out of business, there is nothing you can change,” Morrison said.

 

 

 

scumbag msm

 

 

Statement from WGEM Vice-President and General Manager Ben Van Ness

If you were watching our Wednesday WGEM News at Six report on the Illinois assault weapons ban lawsuit filed by attorney Tom DeVore, we owe you an apology.

Reporter Mike Miletich ad-libbed while reporting live from Effingham to say in part, ‘...we are in downstate Illinois where they hate the media.’ That is not a fact. The facts show we have many loyal viewers who are very supportive of this television station. 

Mike chose to express his opinion, which is not acceptable for a journalist working for this news organization. Our news division is disappointed by what was said, and our leadership team is addressing the matter.

Ben Van Ness Edited by steveTA84
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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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