Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

jcable2

By jcable2
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

jcable2 Member

jcable2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/10/2023 at 11:37 AM, steveTA84 said:

Ruling coming out at 9am tomorrow. Let’s hope Stocks and Caulkins are ready to appeal this to the federal courts on grounds of Caperton V Massey

They should have appealed the Safe-T act ruling because of this also. 

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 8/10/2023 at 11:37 AM, steveTA84 said:

Ruling coming out at 9am tomorrow. Let’s hope Stocks and Caulkins are ready to appeal this to the federal courts on grounds of Caperton V Massey

Hope? 
Is that like hope in one hand, 💩in the other and see which one fills up first?
 

Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
Posted

The ruling is posted.

 

First, we hold that the exemptions neither deny equal protection nor constitute
special legislation because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that they are
similarly situated to and treated differently from the exempt classes. Second,
plaintiffs expressly waived in the circuit court any independent claim that the
restrictions impermissibly infringe the second amendment. Third, plaintiffs’ failure
to cross-appeal is a jurisdictional bar to renewing their three-readings claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court and enter judgment for defendants on the
equal protection and special legislation claims. We express no opinion on the
potential viability of plaintiffs’ waived claim concerning the second amendment.

 

 

Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453.pdf

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:13 AM, Evil Porkchop said:

Not even a little bit surprised by the ruling or the fact they basically punted on the 2A issue.

Because Caulkins AGREED to punt on the 2A issue! 

ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:15 AM, mab22 said:

Because Caulkins AGREED to punt on the 2A issue! 

Question, if Caulkins would have brought 2A front & center, would the case have been immediately sent to federal court? Like Thomas Maag's case...

bmyers Member

bmyers

Posted
Posted

Why would the key issue be waived by the plaintiff? I thought that was the whole reason this was going through court? 

XJBluto Member

XJBluto

Posted
Posted

This is the fault of Illinois voters. Super majority in the house and Senate. Fat Al Capone/King Prickster calling the shots. Chiraq is their seat of power. **** hole city ran by elected criminals.

The criminals on the street run amok with illegal guns. The Illinois voters put and keep the criminal politicians in office.

To think anything will change, given the decades of gerrymandering that has occurred is unthinkable.

SCOTUS will eventually strike down the Illinois Supreme Kangeroo court's decision.

It will be a glorious day.

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted

From the decision, my emphasis.

Quote

Second, we hold that plaintiffs waived any second amendment challenge to the restrictions, as the complaint did not state a claim and plaintiffs explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed any such argument in the circuit court. Third, we hold plaintiffs’ failure to cross-appeal from the denial of relief under count II bars them from renewing their three-readings claim here. For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Macon County is reversed.

 

On 8/11/2023 at 9:20 AM, ealcala31 said:

Question, if Caulkins would have brought 2A front & center, would the case have been immediately sent to federal court? Like Thomas Maag's case...

 

On 8/11/2023 at 9:20 AM, bmyers said:

Why would the key issue be waived by the plaintiff? I thought that was the whole reason this was going through court? 

 

G214me Member

G214me

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:24 AM, XJBluto said:

This is the fault of Illinois voters. Super majority in the house and Senate. Fat Al Capone/King Prickster calling the shots. Chiraq is their seat of power. **** hole city ran by elected criminals.

The criminals on the street run amok with illegal guns. The Illinois voters put and keep the criminal politicians in office.

To think anything will change, given the decades of gerrymandering that has occurred is unthinkable.

SCOTUS will eventually strike down the Illinois Supreme Kangeroo court's decision.

It will be a glorious day.

BINGO !!!! The drooling zombie population can't get bent over often enough. Insane taxes, high crime, loss of liberty, etc. It just doesn't matter how hard they flog the average idiot Illinois voter because they just can't get enough pain. You're correct this will be overturned but first we have to lose out and suffer for who knows how long.

ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:27 AM, mab22 said:

From the decision, my emphasis.

 

 

 

Read that, but because I saw Maag's case go straight to federal court the minute he raised a 2nd Amendment Claim in state court, I thought IL SCOTUS was baiting Caulkins to bring up the 2nd Amendment so they could kick it straight to federal court. I was thinking it was more of a chess match on why he didn't bring up the 2nd Amendment. Plus, on a side not, I think Caulkins was also angry about how the process goes on in Springfield and wanted to end this process through the back door. I honestly have no clue, just speculating...

ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:36 AM, G214me said:

BINGO !!!! The drooling zombie population can't get bent over often enough. Insane taxes, high crime, loss of liberty, etc. It just doesn't matter how hard they flog the average idiot Illinois voter because they just can't get enough pain. You're correct this will be overturned but first we have to lose out and suffer for who knows how long.

100%. I'm just worried SCOTUS might punt on our case and many others for quite some time. They are getting alot of political heat. All the while our rights are infringed the whole time...

ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:37 AM, 2A4Cook said:

I'm SHOCKED!  SHOCKED, I tell you!!!  I had such high hopes for these Democrat activists in robes!

🤣

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:38 AM, ealcala31 said:

Read that, but because I saw Maag's case go straight to federal court the minute he raised a 2nd Amendment Claim in state court, I thought IL SCOTUS was baiting Caulkins to bring up the 2nd Amendment so they could kick it straight to federal court. I was thinking it was more of a chess match on why he didn't bring up the 2nd Amendment. Plus, on a side not, I think Caulkins was also angry about how the process goes on in Springfield and wanted to end this process through the back door. I honestly have no clue, just speculating...

The state’s attorney was baiting, as it has been brought up by Devore, they encouraged him to go straight to IL SC, if e waived several things. I don’t think Caulkins was playing chess, maybe which cup has the ball but not chess. IL was playing chess for sure!
 

Grub Welcome New Member

Grub

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this. Our only real hope(unlikely) is that the 7th Cercuit does the right thing simply because they don't want to get embarrassed by getting reversed by the SC down the road.

ealcala31 Member

ealcala31

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:46 AM, mab22 said:

The state’s attorney was baiting, as it has been brought up by Devore, they encouraged him to go straight to IL SC, if e waived several things. I don’t think Caulkins was playing chess, maybe which cup has the ball but not chess. IL was playing chess for sure!
 

If that's the case, why did we go head 1st with a sub-par lawyer/sub-par strategy. Disappointing to say the least...

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 9:50 AM, ealcala31 said:

If that's the case, why did we go head 1st with a sub-par lawyer/sub-par strategy. Disappointing to say the least...

No one understood your exact question.

The only conclusion is that he is an A**H***(my opinion), and wouldn't even let DeVore finish his investigation!

gunuser17 Member

gunuser17

Posted
Posted

This case was always a long shot because it was about legislative procedures and equal treatment under the Illinois constitution.  This was not a 2nd amendment case.  It was a relatively low cost way to challenge the statute in state court while showing that they were trying to do something and perhaps get some interim relief.  Once a final judgment was entered finding the law unconstitutional, the state had the right to go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The long game was always the federal court and the 2nd amend cases.  

steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2023 at 12:13 PM, lilguy said:

Shot and a miss. Why didn’t they go straight at 2nd infringement? Asking the obvious.

Caulkins answered that today, because it would have been transferred to federal court right off the bat and he wanted to keep it in state court 

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...