Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

On 8/11/2023 at 12:21 PM, steveTA84 said:

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 

BOY That's some AWESOME strategizing right there, challenge constitutional "things" in a state that says GO POUND SAND to State and Federal constitutional issues!  🤦‍♂️

Bet you a FREE POST here that he doesn't challenge it at SCOTUS level. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply possessing a state firearm owner’s identification card “does not entail any kind of firearms training or qualification in furtherance of public safety,” which is required for the exempted groups, the court ruled.”


https://apple.news/AjaY67WqET4qB2-pa5e8egw

 

Does this leave a door open for CCW license holders who do have firearms qualification and training that is approved by IL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 12:56 PM, apex84 said:

Simply possessing a state firearm owner’s identification card “does not entail any kind of firearms training or qualification in furtherance of public safety,” which is required for the exempted groups, the court ruled.”


https://apple.news/AjaY67WqET4qB2-pa5e8egw

 

Does this leave a door open for CCW license holders who do have firearms qualification and training that is approved by IL?

Only if you have some sort of law enforcement capacity, or previous line of work, or are part of the protected class of citizenry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 12:56 PM, apex84 said:

Simply possessing a state firearm owner’s identification card “does not entail any kind of firearms training or qualification in furtherance of public safety,” which is required for the exempted groups, the court ruled.”


https://apple.news/AjaY67WqET4qB2-pa5e8egw

 

Does this leave a door open for CCW license holders who do have firearms qualification and training that is approved by IL?

 

On 8/11/2023 at 12:59 PM, mab22 said:

Only if you have some sort of law enforcement capacity, or previous line of work, or are part of the protected class of citizenry. 

Retired law enforcement are exempt. I did 2yrs of armed security, I retired. Can I be exempt as a retired armed security guard ??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 2:15 PM, richp said:

Not exactly. Retired law enforcement have to qualify annually to retain an IROCC card.

 

Incidentally, it's not a free pass -- it's $75 a year for one gun, and $100 a year if you want to qualify on both revolver and autoloader.

I'm sure no one here has a problem with that. The guy I got my security license from in Mt. Greenwood qualified me for both. I am a h@ll of a lot better shooter now than I was back then. The sad part is that if IL made an exemption, I bet most of us would qualify under local police standards, state police standards, and I would bet many of us could pass the FBI standards. That's if each standard are different. $hit, the FBI couldn't get half their agents to pass their qualifier with a .40cal after 9/11. Thank goodness for them 9mm came back with better ballistics and always capacity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 12:21 PM, steveTA84 said:

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 

 

Because he wanted to challenge the state on the way it does it's legislative business....correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we’re pi—ing in the wind going through Illinois courts. We’re always gonna end up in the best court money can buy. The state justices are just sitting back waiting to swat down our next attempt. There is a reason major gun rights groups don’t waste money in Illinois, the voters want gun control.

They double down every cycle so now there’s a supermajority allied against us. Its the voters folks, it will take SCOTUS to put an end to this, but they sure look mushy at times. If they 

did rule it gone this state would just reword the whole deal and we’d be off to the races again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 2:45 PM, ealcala31 said:

I'm sure no one here has a problem with that. The guy I got my security license from in Mt. Greenwood qualified me for both. I am a h@ll of a lot better shooter now than I was back then. The sad part is that if IL made an exemption, I bet most of us would qualify under local police standards, state police standards, and I would bet many of us could pass the FBI standards. That's if each standard are different. $hit, the FBI couldn't get half their agents to pass their qualifier with a .40cal after 9/11. Thank goodness for them 9mm came back with better ballistics and always capacity...

The fbi quals are nothing to worry about! I passed it cold turkey the first time one day when we were goofing around! Our DOE quals were a lot harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone expect anything else from the liberal socialist bought and paid for state "supreme" court?? Nothing supreme about it except the cost of buying off the judges. The 2nd amendment case will be the same. NOTHING will ever change in this state until they are forced to adhere to the US Constitution like they were over conceal carry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS.  It operates on the premise that states and lower courts respect its authority on legal/constitutional questions.  No one ever foresaw a day when Bolsheviks would take over a state and flip the bird to SCOTUS.  Fat Alphonse, the legislators and these Dem activist "judges" need to be prosecuted.  We all know, though, that it will never happen, and indeed can't under current law.  If the ban is found unconstitutional, they'll simply flip the bird at SCOTUS, enact a similar ban and the viscous circle jerk will begin anew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 5:54 PM, 2A4Cook said:

There is no enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS.  It operates on the premise that states and lower courts respect its authority on legal/constitutional questions.  No one ever foresaw a day when Bolsheviks would take over a state and flip the bird to SCOTUS.  Fat Alphonse, the legislators and these Dem activist "judges" need to be prosecuted.  We all know, though, that it will never happen, and indeed can't under current law.  If the ban is found unconstitutional, they'll simply flip the bird at SCOTUS, enact a similar ban and the viscous circle jerk will begin anew.

That's where you're wrong kiddo.....

 

www.politico.jpg

Edited by yurimodin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 2:15 PM, richp said:

Not exactly. Retired law enforcement have to qualify annually to retain an IROCC card.

 

Incidentally, it's not a free pass -- it's $75 a year for one gun, and $100 a year if you want to qualify on both revolver and autoloader.

 

You also are required to have a minimum of ten years of LE service and have left in good standing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It cuts both ways. You can't have most of the modern gun laws without respecting the legal process and the courts. The police are only as powerful as those who cooperate with them. The moment that ends, they're just a bunch of government employees doing the bare minimum to get by on a paycheck like anyone else.

 

Caulkins v. Pritzker has been very beneficial. Outside the second amendment and it's incorporation, Illinois could 

have just banned ALL modern firearms. They just applied a one-feature test to pistols. That could be

expanded and you could ban all pistols in theory, were it not for cases like McDonald and Moore v. Madigan. 

 

I think the 7th Circuit sees somewhat, the damage that could be done with the registration requirement

come October for this. Or at least I want to believe they do.

 

I will say it now: you won't be able to register even if you want to.

 

If the law includes any part specifically meant, or attachment, that means you need 

(in theory) an affidavit for EVERY part. That's impossible.  

 

The downstate crowd needs to understand: your best shot at makeing grape juice from Welch's 

concentrated Protect Illinois Communities Act is through federal court.

 

Otherwise, why doesn't Illinoiscarry and similar gun groups in Illinois just have their own 

FFL? members just pay for them to be made and then just list members as responsible persons on the FFL

to get around the ban. Just a thought.

Edited by crufflesmuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Calkins and Devore were asked NOT to include 2A claims. the idea is to get the federal courts here to robustly adopt New York, or have SCOTUS jam it down their throats, binding the state SC and tying their hands. 

 

I thought Devore had the better tact and plan. And he saw thew pitfalls. his video from the other day is very informative and they still have aq game plan. but it is complicated by this ruling. I think the judges he is before will likely see that the issues left open from the Calkins case are still ripe, his plaintiffs are differently situated and he is doing the work to show how as the Court said the present case did NOT explain. 

 

I would for see the state attempting to motion to dismiss based upon Calkins. Motion to toss TRO's based upon calkins, Motion to transger to Sangamon due to the new law about challenging constitutionality of laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

side mission accomplished lol 

 

https://www.saf.org/il-high-court-ruling-does-not-affect-saf-federal-challenge-of-gun-ban/

 

BELLEVUE, WA – Friday morning’s narrow ruling by the Illinois State Supreme Court, upholding the state ban on so-called “assault weapons,” does not affect the ongoing federal challenge of the ban by the Second Amendment Foundation.

“While we are disappointed in the state court’s narrow 4-3 decision,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “our federal case remains very much alive and we will continue fighting the Illinois ban.”

SAF is joined in the case, known as Harrel v. Raoul, by the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Marengo Guns, the C4 Gun Store and Dane Harrel, for whom the case is known. Gottlieb noted the court consists of five Democrat justices and two Republicans. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Elizabeth M. Rochford, whose appearance last October as a speaker at an event for the Illinois Moms Demand Action gun control group caused a stir on social media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2023 at 12:55 PM, dogsoldier321 said:

 

You also are required to have a minimum of ten years of LE service and have left in good standing. 

Yes, there are other conditions that must be fulfilled as well, just to get into the IROCC system. I was just referring to the annual qualification and cost requirements, which differ considerably from the non-LEO process.

 

And of course it's worth noting that most other states do not have the restrictive bureaucracy that Illinois has built up around LE retirees carrying. But then, this is Illinois...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2023 at 2:46 PM, crufflesmuth said:

It cuts both ways. You can't have most of the modern gun laws without respecting the legal process and the courts. The police are only as powerful as those who cooperate with them. The moment that ends, they're just a bunch of government employees doing the bare minimum to get by on a paycheck like anyone else.

Welcome to the new normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest: The state courts in Illinois are not, and never will be, a suitable venue for any Second Amendment case.

 

Your only option is to file in federal court. Forget the state courts altogether. I still don't understand why these cases were filed in state court at all to begin with. There was never going to be an outcome different than this.

 

The same goes for the FOID case out of Sangamon. I respect Guns Save Life for what they're doing, but why wasn't that case filed in federal court, aside from questions of financial resources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Yesterday we became aware of the fact that on November 9th, Caulkins filed a petition for the case to be heard at the SCOTUS:

 

Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-510.html

Complaint: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-510/289299/20231109164725942_Caulkins Petition.pdf

 

MUCH THANKS to SteveTA84 and Mom-At-Arms for their relentless research into the conflicts of interest present with the judges on the Illinois Supreme Court.

 

Defense's response is due by December 14, 2023.

 

 

Edited by Upholder
Correct dates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2023 at 12:24 AM, MrTriple said:

Let's be honest: The state courts in Illinois are not, and never will be, a suitable venue for any Second Amendment case.

 

Your only option is to file in federal court. Forget the state courts altogether. I still don't understand why these cases were filed in state court at all to begin with. There was never going to be an outcome different than this.

 

The same goes for the FOID case out of Sangamon. I respect Guns Save Life for what they're doing, but why wasn't that case filed in federal court, aside from questions of financial resources?

 

A case can lose in state courts and get to SCOTUS a lot faster than it can in the federal courts.

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...