Jump to content

Hearing today in central Illinois

techgeek

By techgeek
in Illinois Politics

Recommended Posts

ragsbo Member

ragsbo

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 4:55 PM, milq said:

It means that the law can't be enforced until further action by the court. Technically, it only applies to the named parties in the lawsuit and I'm not sure how it applies to everyone else. 

I don't understand how a law can be unconstitutional for one person but constitutional for another???? It is either all or none!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gunuser17 Member

gunuser17

Posted
Posted

A TRO would typically remain in place until modified or terminated by the Judge or the case reaches a final verdict.  If the plaintiffs were ultimately successful with the case then I would expect a permanent injunction to be entered.  I am not sure that anyone can definitively answer at this point just how how much of the state the TRO encompasses without more study and perhaps seeing an actual opinion from the judge.  I believe by Illinois statute:  "Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its entry; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained; and is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:03 PM, gunuser17 said:

This ruling has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law.   This case is simply based on the process by which the bill was enacted into law in violation of various rules governing that process.

 

You are correct that it is not related to how it is a violation of the 2nd and 14th amendments to the US Constitution as that is not what was argued in this case. 

 

It is unconstitutional due to the process requirements for bills to become law in the Illinois Constitution, which is mostly what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
solareclipse2 Member

solareclipse2

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 6:03 PM, gunuser17 said:

This ruling has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law.   This case is simply based on the process by which the bill was enacted into law in violation of various rules governing that process.


yes but if the law was passed in violation of the rules governing said process how is it that that ruling is not valid in the entirely of the state where the law was passed.


I think that was the actual question 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spec5 Member

spec5

Posted
Posted

Our local news said it covered the whole state. It dealt with the legislator passing it within 48 hours but the subject of the bill changed from the first reading. I'm just repeating what the local news said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mousegun6 Member

mousegun6

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:07 PM, solareclipse2 said:


yes but if the law was passed in violation of the rules governing said process how is it that that ruling is not valid in the entirely of the state where the law was passed.


I think that was the actual question 

 

I think it may come down to "standing"as defined by the court. The people who brought the suit have proven that they were harmed by the law and thus they benefit from the TRO. The rest of us will get our relief in due time. In the meantime, this is a great start and it has exposed the crooked way the democrats push through legislation in the dark of night and disregard the rights of the people of this state. I hope JB hears the news and gets indigestion when he has his fancy dinner at the WEF party in Davos tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milq Member

milq

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:18 PM, mousegun6 said:

. I hope JB hears the news and gets indigestion when he has his fancy dinner at the WEF party in Davos tonight.

The story linked in my previous post has a quote from him. He's disappointed but knows the law will be found Constitutional in the end, blah, blah

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2A4Cook Member

2A4Cook

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:26 PM, milq said:

The story linked in my previous post has a quote from him. He's disappointed but knows the law will be found Constitutional in the end, blah, blah

Maybe in his (rear) end.  He may never have really practiced, he may be a crappy so-called "lawyer" and a moron and he may be dishonest ... but he knows darned well it's unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mousegun6 Member

mousegun6

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:26 PM, milq said:

The story linked in my previous post has a quote from him. He's disappointed but knows the law will be found Constitutional in the end, blah, blah

I read that response from his office. They prepared that statement when the first lawsuit was filed and had it ready and waiting since they knew in advance that the law was unconstitutional.

JB is busy glad-handing the rich and powerful in Davos and thinking about being president. Get your jammies on JB, cuz your dreamin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
357 Member

357

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:13 PM, spec5 said:

Our local news said it covered the whole state. It dealt with the legislator passing it within 48 hours but the subject of the bill changed from the first reading. I'm just repeating what the local news said.

That's great news, it doesn't make sense that it would only apply to 866 people. Pigster can keep lying and screaming about not existing weapons of mass destruction and assaulting weapons like a hypocrite and tyrant that he is while he builds shooting ranges for himself and has real military weapons at his museums, not the rifles made for civilians which he wants to ban by lying and labeling them machine guns.

 

Too cute by half and do as I say not as I do. It has has nothing to do with safety and we are not stupid and don't believe your lies and propaganda. You don't punish and turn into criminals 2.5 million innocent people because one criminal murdered 7 people in the first mass shooting with a rifle in Illinois. Find another lie and excuse, we are not your or Bloomberg's subjects and you are not kings to impose your will on us and can't buy everyone so pound sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2A4Cook Member

2A4Cook

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:32 PM, 357 said:

That's great news, it doesn't make sense that it would only apply to 866 people. Pigster can keep lying and screaming about not existing weapons of mass destruction and assaulting weapons like a hypocrite and tyrant that he is while he builds shooting ranges for himself and has real military weapons at his museums, not the rifles made for civilians which he wants to ban by lying and labeling them machine guns.

 

Too cute by half and do as I say not as I do. It has has nothing to do with safety and we are not stupid and don't believe your lies and propaganda. You don't punish and turn into criminals 2.5 million innocent people because one criminal murdered 7 people in the first mass shooting with a rifle in Illinois. Find another lie and excuse, we are not your or Bloomberg's subjects and you are not kings to impose your will on us and can't buy everyone so pound sand.

Pigster reminds me of King Draconian Gun Ban Daley, who had inherited one of the largest firearms collections in the State of Illinois, and who left loaded firearms laying around his vacation home, where his then 16 year old kid threw a kegger, grabbed a shotgun out of a hallway closet and leveled it at some unwelcome "guests."  As always, nothing happened to either of them, and it quietly went away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
springfield shooter Member

springfield shooter

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:31 PM, Matt B said:

Yeah JB is talking a big game that the 7th circuit will bail his gun ban out. I’m not so sure about that.

 

The current makeup of the active judges on the 7th Circuit bench is one Reagan appointee, two by GWB, three by Biden, and four by Trump...with one vacant seat.

 

The supervising SCOTUS justice is Barrett.

 

I like our chances.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:24 PM, gunuser17 said:

Too bad that they did not add the head of the state police and the prosecutors in  Cook and some other anti counties since the defendants are enjoined from enforcing the law.  Not sure how that impacts the state police since the governor cannot order them to enforce the law.

 

Would a next logical step be to follow the "no cash bail" model, where the Illinois Supreme Court enjoined the remaining parts of the state in order to maintain consitant law throughout?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
357 Member

357

Posted
Posted
On 1/20/2023 at 5:44 PM, 2A4Cook said:

Pigster reminds me of King Draconian Gun Ban Daley, who had inherited one of the largest firearms collections in the State of Illinois, and who left loaded firearms laying around his vacation home, where his then 16 year old kid threw a kegger, grabbed a shotgun out of a hallway closet and leveled it at some unwelcome "guests."  As always, nothing happened to either of them, and it quietly went away.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyrants have sinister plans and that's why they're desperate to take the guns and afraid of regular people having firearms. They think they're better than us and their life is more important and only they and their bodyguards should have firearms.

 

The Constitution is just a piece of paper to them and it doesn't apply to them and only the laws they like should be enforced. The 2nd Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights for a reason, to keep would be tyrants who want total control in check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted
Quote

Today, the Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC), the state’s leading gun safety organization, released a statement from its CEO Kathleen Sances following a judge’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order against Illinois’ new state-wide assault weapon and large-capacity magazines ban.

 

“The judge’s ruling today is disappointing and makes light of the gun violence impacting Illinois. The fact remains – this is a pivotal moment for our state. A strong and diverse movement for gun safety is proving that we can wrestle power from the gun lobby, and ensure that our state prioritizes public safety over profits. The ban on assault weapons, large-capacity magazines is proof of this change in our status quo.

 

“This request for a temporary restraining order and other frivolous lawsuits are on brand for the gun lobby. They’re not kicking up dust to protect anyone’s rights, except their own right to fill up their coffers at the expense of Black and Brown lives and those of innocent children. We see through their greed, and we will not allow it to rule our laws and lives. We are a proud movement of gun safety advocates, survivors, lawmakers and concerned citizens, and we will continue to fight to save lives from this man-made epidemic.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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