Jump to content

FFL-IL v Pritzker


Tvandermyde
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Molly B. changed the title to FFL-IL v Priztker
  • Molly B. changed the title to FFL-IL v Pritzker
  • Molly B. pinned this topic

I read and enjoyed the entire initial brief (the complaint).  Over the years I've read a lot of these and I find this one particularly well constructed, thorough, and persuasive.  The government would have an impossible task of rebutting the complaint directly so they will not.  Instead, the government will list each victim at Highland Park by name, age, exact injuries, and assert that but for the type of gun, the tragedy at HP would not have occurred.  That, we know is a lie because bolt action rifles with a magazine are darn fast too and those are not yet on the banned list.  There is no question though that goal of the criminal legislators is to dramatically extend the list to encompasses and ban as much as possible.  Their own words and history prove that.

 

This whole Firearms Ban Act is bananas.  It's astounding they can enact such a dung heap of legislation after their 0-4 loss record at scotus and especially after the clear instructions and admonitions from the NYSPRA v Bruen case at scotus. They pole vaulted way past potato this time.

 

Good job with this initial complaint document by the people involved. I'm especially happy Chuck Michel is one of the attorneys.

Edited by Howard Roark
Speling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 12:09 AM, Howard Roark said:

Instead, the government will list each victim at Highland Park by name, age, exact injuries, and assert that but for the type of gun, the tragedy at HP would not have occurred.

 

And that is now a 100% moot argument that only a entirely corrupt judge would even entertain anymore, Bruen was clear that means-ends is moot and I would hope that even Illinois judges understand it's moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 12:09 AM, Howard Roark said:

I read and enjoyed the entire initial brief (the complaint).  Over the years I've read a lot of these and I find this one particularly well constructed, thorough, and persuasive.  The government would have an impossible task of rebutting the complaint directly so they will not.  Instead, the government will list each victim at Highland Park by name, age, exact injuries, and assert that but for the type of gun, the tragedy at HP would not have occurred.  That, we know is a lie because bolt action rifles with a magazine are darn fast too and those are not yet on the banned list.  There is no question though that goal of the criminal legislators is to dramatically extend the list to encompasses and ban as much as possible.  Their own words and history prove that.

 

This whole Firearms Ban Act is bananas.  It's astounding they can enact such a dung heap of legislation after their 0-4 loss record at scotus and especially after the clear instructions and admonitions from the NYSPRA v Bruen case at scotus. They pole vaulted way past potato this time.

 

Good job with this initial complaint document by the people involved. I'm especially happy Chuck Michel is one of the attorneys.

This was my favorite part of the complaint.  I can’t wait for the AG’s people to show their true colors and attack these facts and statements and letting out their inner racists and sexists 

 

A792C49E-F002-44B1-9278-03E92FD294A3.thumb.jpeg.7f306f358f35b222352aa520cb9ef334.jpeg68DD474A-A42F-4CB6-B98F-8436C72C0909.thumb.jpeg.e2757ec58fbc7c5ad30f6ddadac90070.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About all I would have added, is to also try to preempt an argument the state is likely to try, i.e. via Heller, that Governments still reatian the ability to ban dangerous AND unusual weapons.  Most likely they will try to use dangerous or unusual.  Granted, the brief hits ad nausea, that these weapons are anything but unusual.  And it does talk wonderfully on how the items that make a semi auto mag weapon an 'assault weapon' do nothing to make them any more dangerous, but in fact, safer.  But something along the lines of that firearms are supposed to be dangerous, that is their purpose.  And the firearms banned here, are not any more dangerous than most that are not banned, and in many cases a lot less dangerous for home and personal defense (Look at penetration statistics of most common 'hunting', bolt action rifles.

 

I get that you have limited space.  And granted, IF the state goes that way, it can be addressed in arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 10:01 AM, cybermgk said:

About all I would have added, is to also try to preempt an argument the state is likely to try, i.e. via Heller, that Governments still reatian the ability to ban dangerous AND unusual weapons.  Most likely they will try to use dangerous or unusual.  Granted, the brief hits ad nausea, that these weapons are anything but unusual.  And it does talk wonderfully on how the items that make a semi auto mag weapon an 'assault weapon' do nothing to make them any more dangerous, but in fact, safer.  But something along the lines of that firearms are supposed to be dangerous, that is their purpose.  And the firearms banned here, are not any more dangerous than most that are not banned, and in many cases a lot less dangerous for home and personal defense (Look at penetration statistics of most common 'hunting', bolt action rifles.

 

I get that you have limited space.  And granted, IF the state goes that way, it can be addressed in arguments.

 

 

No this is not a class action suit

 

We will add all the anti-heller arguments in on the motion for the prelim/perm injunction. We wanted to tee this up the right way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 10:47 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

 

No this is not a class action suit

 

We will add all the anti-heller arguments in on the motion for the prelim/perm injunction. We wanted to tee this up the right way.

 

 

I get the 2nd point, not the first.  Not sure how a class action suit or not matters viz a viz what I said.  Or were you also responding to @Frozencpu?

Edited by cybermgk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Illinois will follow the california and NY arguments and attempt to bootstrap Bruen and Heller and claim this bill doesn't apply.  They'll try to change the language.  Our council needs to be ready for those gimmicks and that Illinois will routinely attempt to interest balance. It will be vitally important not to get drawn into an interest balance argument. 

 

I don't think they'll make the same mistake as California and cite all those racist laws and regs that were on the books.   But if they think they are going to lose, they may introduce them as a hail mary with the same caveats that California used... we know these are racist laws, but just ignore they are racist laws and focus on the regulation, Mr. Judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the brief.

 

But my question is why has no one addressed the lost value of the firearms in possession?

 

By virtue of the language, they just de-valued them all.  In essence they said your $30,000 worth of firearms have zero value.  You are allowed to keep them but cannot sell them in any instance. Yes, you can transfer them to someone in another state but if they sold that way, then you are in violation of the legislation.

 

They are basically declaring Eminent Domain without providing a method of compensation either from them or another qualified purchaser....and in fact are controlling the possession just as if they had done the same when your real estate property was in their way.

 

Why has this not been addressed?

 

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...