Jump to content

Rep. Caulkins Lawsuit Against the "Assault Weapons Ban" (Caulkins v Prizker)


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/16/2023 at 8:14 AM, steveTA84 said:

Awesome interview regarding the judicial ethics in play and Pritzker’s idiotic excuse/response to this mess 

 

 

For the record...

Bob Fioretti is violating the code of ethics for NOT reporting this to the bar! 

This is no different than a teacher being required report suspected sexual abuse of a child WHEREVER it is (in school, school year, regardless) they loose their license to teach!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 11:39 AM, jcable2 said:

The state police have no backbone and will do exactly as JB tells them. The judge could come out this afternoon and say yes it applies state wide and they will still vow down to JB. 

Maybe we would just have to donate to his re-election campaign to get him to do this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 11:39 AM, jcable2 said:

The state police have no backbone and will do exactly as JB tells them. The judge could come out this afternoon and say yes it applies state wide and they will still vow down to JB. 

 

The reason why it doesn't apply state wide has been posted a page or two prior to this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 12:44 PM, mab22 said:

 

The reason why it doesn't apply state wide has been posted a page or two prior to this.

 

Devore, JB, the AG and State police are ignoring the definition of facially unconstitutional though with those opinions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

A law that has been declared facially unconstitutional completely voids the law as if it never existed. That is settled case law. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State Police and AG’s Office not releasing guidance post-decision. They’re redacting the guidance under “attorney/client privilege”. I’m leaning in the direction that this opens the door for potential further emergency litigation, as why would they redact guidelines of it was on the grounds of what they want?

 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2023 at 8:26 AM, steveTA84 said:

State Police and AG’s Office not releasing guidance post-decision. They’re redacting the guidance under “attorney/client privilege”. I’m leaning in the direction that this opens the door for potential further emergency litigation, as why would they redact guidelines of it was on the grounds of what they want?

 

Can A/C privilege even be claimed if you have qualified immunity??????

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...