Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

On 5/16/2023 at 10:23 AM, Odinson said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't seem like that went very well for us.

 

You're correct. The judges act confused and pretend they just can't understand what our side wants even though it's being explained over and over again. The lawyer the state had seemed pretty unprepared and basically sucked. I'm sure suitcases full of cash toward a couple so called judges won't help either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the recap on what transpired in the oral arguments.

 

But did anyone SERIOUSLY think that this was going to go any different for us. Those judges are bought and paid for and will do everything they can to either kick the can down the road or rule against the 2nd amendment.

 

I like everyone else here likes to be optimistic but I'm a realist and understand how the deck is stacked against us. It's going to take SCOTUS to slap down the inferior courts before we see any relief. Just my opinion. 

 

KING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 10:45 AM, TargetCollector said:

Do we even really want this one to win, though?  If it gets tossed on these procedural arguments, they'll just rewrite the thing with a couple of patches to invalidate future arguments and make it harder to fight on 2A grounds, no?

The state won't let it go. They may get rid of the special privileges for some but they will want the rest of it to stay and that's where the federal court and maybe SCOTUS will knock it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 10:29 AM, steveTA84 said:

Well, let’s see if Stocks appeals this stacked deck case to SCOTUS on the grounds of Caperton V Massey once they rule that cops and locksmiths have more rights than anyone else 

These so called oral arguments we saw today reminds me of the hearings scene from the movie Animal House. And we're Delta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 10:45 AM, TargetCollector said:

Do we even really want this one to win, though?  If it gets tossed on these procedural arguments, they'll just rewrite the thing with a couple of patches to invalidate future arguments and make it harder to fight on 2A grounds, no?

Yes, we do want this to win. It will make it harder for the state to pass laws by skipping the procedure set forth by the Illinois Constitution. That's why they were able to pass the ban so easily in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 12:20 PM, yurimodin said:

"You play a different role(peasant)"

This goes to the heart of the State's problem arguing the equal protection violations: It's not just on-duty, but rather the exemption includes retired LEOs.  Retired LEO is in the same "role" as I am, Kwamie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 12:28 PM, ddan said:

This goes to the heart of the State's problem arguing the equal protection violations: It's not just on-duty, but rather the exemption includes retired LEOs.  Retired LEO is in the same "role" as I am, Kwamie.  

 

You are either subject to the UCMJ or you're a civilian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Liberal justices both fundamentally don't understand or accept the 2A being an individual right.  They think guns are different than every other right.  

 

So the plaintiff attorney during his press conference ask the question what if the case was about equal protection and voting rights - they understand that.   But 2A and EP aren't the same because guns are icky and bad and a separate right outside of the normal bill of rights.    

 

That is how they all think.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 2:51 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Liberal justices both fundamentally don't understand or accept the 2A being an individual right.  They think guns are different than every other right.  

 

So the plaintiff attorney during his press conference ask the question what if the case was about equal protection and voting rights - they understand that.   But 2A and EP aren't the same because guns are icky and bad and a separate right outside of the normal bill of rights.    

 

That is how they all think.  

 

 

Judgements based on emotion ignoring facts shouldn't be enforceable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 10:06 PM, JTHunter said:

With the "judgement" of these corrupt judges an almost forgone conclusion, does this not make the likelihood of it being brought to the USSC much greater?

Yes, and they’re even breaking their own rules lol. Nice MDA branded cookie there, judge! Notice above the highlighted parts that the canons pertain to candidates as well, not just seated justices 

 

86550D24-4E5E-4B12-A05A-3BEA0B532DCE.thumb.jpeg.ca12e73319953a941dcda638fc5e285c.jpegB7EADF33-233E-4E8A-AB64-0430DC1C5941.thumb.jpeg.3a4d2ea97b3b6eed2759e15aeb87d24b.jpeg676298C1-F546-47B0-931E-1E59F2F27AC0.thumb.jpeg.2a821e888983daa66ab58a2f0ec90cbc.jpeg3D2BB16D-5D8D-41E1-9842-96628B589186.thumb.jpeg.490476a300eb1c3df0d9fd47432b188f.jpegC92C2B61-0052-4C71-92CD-8D9141B2AA8F.thumb.jpeg.fbe12fef25a5e3fc60eecfd2dcf82d16.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 10:06 PM, JTHunter said:

With the "judgement" of these corrupt judges an almost forgone conclusion, does this not make the likelihood of it being brought to the USSC much greater?

Only if Caulkins, has the right case, decides to take it to the SCOTUS, has the funds, AND someone to argue it.
Then…. Sure.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 11:02 PM, mab22 said:

Only if Caulkins, has the right case, decides to take it to the SCOTUS, has the funds, AND someone to argue it.
Then…. Sure.
 

If the ruling is 4-3, and only one or neither end up recusing, easy appeal to SCOTUS. 3-3 (if one recuses), we win. If 5-2, it could be argued that ruling even without them wouldn’t have changed anything. Either way, state is corrupt 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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