Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

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

On 11/15/2023 at 5:13 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Nothing about it at WGN or NBC news Chicago websites.  I found links to the story from Champaign and Decatur local affiliates. 

 

The north shore libs must not like this development.

 

Good work Steve.

Yeah unless I’m mistaken this is the first opportunity for scotus to address a final judgement 2a challenge to a gun ban since Bruen. Add in the conflict of interest and I am very curious to see if this draws scotus attention 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2023 at 5:13 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Nothing about it at WGN or NBC news Chicago websites.  I found links to the story from Champaign and Decatur local affiliates. 

 

The north shore libs must not like this development.

 

Good work Steve.

Comments on Facebook are what you’d expect from the rere’s that are anti-gun. “You do t care about the children!”

 

”GOP just wants their blood money!”

 

it’s apparent they know nothing about the case and why it’s where it is now lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2023 at 5:43 PM, Matt B said:

Yeah unless I’m mistaken this is the first opportunity for scotus to address a final judgement 2a challenge to a gun ban since Bruen. Add in the conflict of interest and I am very curious to see if this draws scotus attention 

It’s a curveball case, and remember, the grounds it’s being challenged on is a liberal wing decision lol, which was first brought up in the article that started everything!  
https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/conflict-of-interest-with-il-supreme-court-and-gun-ban-ruling-appeal

 

I’ll tell you, if cert is granted, I’m retiring from activism 😂😂😂. It works be perfect because it would be the left’s (anti-gun left/big money left/gun grabbers)  own fault all around as to why this is happening 
 

7B45C769-E92A-4C19-88DB-6B4C6F19E367.thumb.jpeg.ee2d6933a487fbfe268b2f026e2c34eb.jpeg40E22312-EA5C-42BF-9103-274F619BA06B.thumb.jpeg.23ec5499e70fe697bf3f4822337e5e43.jpegA72CBCF8-C503-4948-82B5-F2852C1243ED.thumb.jpeg.953942a410136b8471685410d9feccd5.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2023 at 5:57 PM, steveTA84 said:

It’s a curveball case, and remember, the grounds it’s being challenged on is a liberal wing decision lol, which was first brought up in the article that started everything!  
https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/conflict-of-interest-with-il-supreme-court-and-gun-ban-ruling-appeal

 

I’ll tell you, if cert is granted, I’m retiring from activism 😂😂😂. It works be perfect because it would be the left’s (anti-gun left/big money left/gun grabbers)  own fault all around as to why this is happening 

 

Just remember that it is the Supreme Court.  If they take the case, they could expand it to more than just an appeal based on judicial corruption.  They could expand it to equal protection AND the 2nd amendment. 

 

Heck, they could "Roberts" the decision and say that the law only survives if there are no exceptions and declare the LEO exceptions to be unconstitutional and thus restricting even on duty law enforcement to the same rules as the rest of us while we all wait for the lower courts on the 2A issues. Wouldn't that be an LOL moment.  

 

 

Edited by Dumak_from_arfcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods, now that the recusal thread has peaked, and it’s a whole new ballgame, can we just post here regarding it?

 

 

@Dumak_from_arfcom

They could. I’m paying most attention to this though. If (big “if”) they take it up, it has the potential to completely change judicial elections and campaign finance around it. Also, it will throw egg in the fact of gun control groups that endorse judges because it makes it so they have to be VERY VERY careful on what their endorsements mean.

 

B056E673-6D94-4FC7-8F42-A60533988151.thumb.jpeg.cc788df48d0dca47a6abd147eace41ea.jpeg7A5DDD4A-6C03-452A-8DCD-235DEF460ECB.thumb.jpeg.65c20b8c54ef10b1cee593d1a4f29e36.jpeg3D7A02A6-9DDA-4F25-9337-F98F7721BE8D.thumb.jpeg.77bf3e5aee9d7bf075ed945f795b50a5.jpeg37F6C0E0-87B7-4AAB-8AC6-84938DF953B7.thumb.jpeg.6e5c28b453183b672746e68993ae3376.jpeg

 

Now regarding that pledge, Rochford already said on her own darn Facebook page how she got the endorsement and provided a link to it lol

 

FA4E29DE-43E6-45D0-AE2B-8822BB1224B1.thumb.jpeg.bcd462d291c4e7a7552fc00b4c2826c8.jpeg
 

 

Click the link and poof 

 

877F3441-366A-4C38-A9BE-8527E860B9B7.thumb.jpeg.4ca3ab806cacb8d264ca25412a53f658.jpeg

 

 

O’Brien’s dissent doesn’t matter that much, as Rochford, one of the justices in question, authored the opinion. Based on the basis of the appeal to SCOTUS on Caperton V Massey because they refused to recuse on multiple conflicts of interest/appearance of bias, IF this is taken up, it has the potential to hit at a lot more than just guns. Even if guns on the whole are tossed in this case, the state ruling would be discarded and either the lower court ruling stands or a “do over” happens.  My hopes aren’t that high, but Stocks/Caulkins did good and are going all in and make a solid case in their appeal (even if their state case was blah at best). 
 

 

Also, as a FYI, this assists in keeping DeVore’s cases alive at the state level

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://chambanasun.com/stories/652224363-state-rep-dan-caulkins-files-petition-to-u-s-supreme-court-to-review-the-illinois-high-court-decision-on-the-assault-weapons-ban
 

Decatur, IL – State Representative Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur) has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on Illinois’ weapons ban law on due process, equal protection, and Second Amendment grounds.

At issue is the denial of due process under the 14th Amendment arising from Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien participating in the case despite overwhelming reasons they should have recused themselves. Both justices received disproportionate contributions from the leaders of the co-equal branches of government in the aggregate sum of more than $2.5 million calling into question their impartiality and independence. Both Justices reportedly committed to the outcome for an assault weapon ban during their respective campaigns joined by the Defendants which contributes to the denial of due process right to a fair hearing.

Specifically, both justices received the endorsement of G-PAC, which states: “Each endorsed candidate supports our #1 legislative priority when the General Assembly is called into session: banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Both Justice Rochford and O’Brien received disproportionate campaign contributions, and both made a commitment to support the legislative policy of banning assault weapons,” Caulkins said. “Additionally, the donations to these justices came from Gov. JB Pritzker and House Speaker Chris Welch which calls into question the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. Given the size of the campaign contributions and who gave the contributions, there not only is a question of fairness and impartiality, there also is a question of the independence of the Justices which calls into question the validity of the state court decision.”

Caulkins said the due process under the 14th Amendment argument calls into question the fairness of the proceedings at the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition also asks for a review of the substance of the case which centers on the three readings requirement in the Illinois Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The weapons ban law was not read three times which is required for all legislation to become a law. The law also violates the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection clause. The Second Amendment applies to all “arms commonly possessed for lawful purposes.” This law declares that assault weapons shall remain arms commonly possessed by the grandfathered for lawful purposes. The law cannot subject the prohibited to criminal sanction for possessing arms for lawful purposes without violating the Second Amendment or denying equal protection of the laws. Both the “prohibited” and the “grandfathered” are FOID holders which means no historic tradition of gun regulation prohibits them as dangerous people.

The petition states: “There exists no rational basis to criminalize one person indistinguishable in any manner based on conduct from another immunized from the criminal liability or to speculate that the prohibited present a greater risk for mass shootings than the grandfathered based on the date an assault weapon was acquired. The grandfathered who are immunized from criminal liability for possession have no greater training than the prohibited merely because the grandfathered already possess an assault weapon. Or, if the grandfathered are presumed to be safe (lawful) to possess assault weapons by mere possession, then the prohibited would satisfy the same safety presumption if allowed to acquire and possess. The fortuity of time of acquisition bears no connection to safety or danger. The resulting arbitrary classification on the face of the Assault Weapons Partial Ban fails all levels of scrutiny test and should be invalidated on this additional basis.”

“This petition is about the thousands of plaintiffs who joined my lawsuit and were denied a fair proceeding at the Illinois State Supreme Court,” Caulkins said. “The Illinois Supreme Court does not have an objective standard for recusals. The Court relies on individual justices to determine if there is a conflict. The end result is an unfair process that leads to biased outcomes. We are asking the U.S. Supreme to review this case based on the lack of fairness as well as the merits of our arguments against the weapons ban law.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2023 at 11:01 AM, Matt B said:

Just came here to post this. Cert petition should start getting a lot more attention amongst the 2a community now.

It is not a good case IMO, but the fact more than just the gun ban are involved (the reasons for appeal), and how dirty everything was, makes it a plausible case to take up. If it is taken up, and the actual gun ban is allowed to be addressed vs just the conflicts of interest/bias in the ruling, one could hope Stocks and Co work with others who are more experienced in this level of litigation (which Caulkins did say they had help from a firm that is). We all shall see, but this case is the front runner right now and that’s wild. As I said in the other thread, this has a potential to majority handicap gun control groups and how they campaign for state justices 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2023 at 10:48 AM, Upholder said:

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.

 

 

Mods go ahead and delete this dup

Edited by cybermgk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reposing my question since the threads got mussed up.

    •  
On 11/15/2023 at 12:30 PM, steveTA84 said:

Mainstream news now, although they of course watered it down

 

https://www.newsweek.com/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-faces-new-challenge-1843894

 

Now, state Rep. Dan Caulkins, a Republican, has petitioned the nation's highest court to review the state Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law on due process, equal protection and Second Amendment grounds.

The petition argues that Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O'Brien participated in the case despite receiving campaign contributions from those who support the ban.

"Both Justice Rochford and O'Brien received disproportionate campaign contributions, and both made a commitment to support the legislative policy of banning assault weapons," Caulkins told WRSP-TV.
 

"Additionally, the donations to these justices came from Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and [state] House Speaker Chris Welch which calls into question the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.


"Given the size of the campaign contributions and who gave the contributions, there not only is a question of fairness and impartiality, there also is a question of the independence of the justices which calls into question the validity of the state court decision."

 

 

 

 

Expand  

So what happens?

 

IF SCOTUS takes the case, do they send it back and she has to recuse and they redo the case, does SCOTUS review the case and make a final decision, do they send it back for something different without recusal?

 

I just wish the Devore case would have had the hearing, and get another injunction before this came out. I have a feeling it's gonna be anther BOHICA moment. Devore is waiting on the hearing date from the judge so it isn't his fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2023 at 4:53 PM, steveTA84 said:

Just got the email from DeVore @mab22

872BD601-70E0-4100-849C-7611D3934B30.thumb.jpeg.26c5b6e91abb26b195ab06494c6aa18c.jpeg

 

I listened to today's update, Devore said it won't have any effect on the Devore case at this time. If they take it up and he wins on everything before ours is done then it would have a positive effect.

But they Caulkins case can't hurt ours anymore then it already did.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2023 at 6:54 PM, mab22 said:

 

I listened to today's update, Devore said it won't have any effect on the Devore case at this time. If they take it up and he wins on everything before ours is done then it would have a positive effect.

But they Caulkins case can't hurt ours anymore then it already did.

 

 

 

 

Yep, the weak Caulkins case (as opposed to DeVore’s) can only lead to positive things now or nothing at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2023 at 4:08 PM, mab22 said:

Reposing my question since the threads got mussed up.

    •  

So what happens?

 

IF SCOTUS takes the case, do they send it back and she has to recuse and they redo the case, does SCOTUS review the case and make a final decision, do they send it back for something different without recusal?

 

I just wish the Devore case would have had the hearing, and get another injunction before this came out. I have a feeling it's gonna be anther BOHICA moment. Devore is waiting on the hearing date from the judge so it isn't his fault.

 

It is the US Supreme Court, they could do whatever they want if they take the case. 

 

I'll give us a 20% chance they grant cert.  If they grant cert, something tells me they are more likely to issue a wider ruling than a narrow ruling.  They may not want to send it back down to a corrupt court.     

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Caperton ruling (Justice that was overturned explaining his reason to not recuse)

4F634893-513A-4405-A9BC-96A0D9C6F1D4.thumb.jpeg.9a6fe4a08943c1bf8dd878d6d81f2a77.jpeg

 

Rochford refusing to recuse lol (from Center Square article quoting her order not recusing)

 

B30D408F-293B-4C26-AAF6-14B17DBC6186.thumb.jpeg.761b83f8493d50e336a1d0db9b2384bc.jpeg


Rochford flat out saying on her FB page how she got the endorsement of GPAC and linking the process to earn it 

 

 

E76A2189-5C84-462B-9663-3E52D97A525C.thumb.jpeg.2f02eb04d310b6a1fed68e81ea52a106.jpeg872F5C35-C4C9-449A-BA7B-817E2AF4C324.thumb.jpeg.ef3ad109fb3249c49312f6fcfb120de2.jpeg


From the petition to SCOTUS

 

9429092F-FD4D-4087-8102-D9C343FC4FA6.thumb.jpeg.e6a720b0ed418e3cc07f6c4be1dc36e8.jpegB71686F6-1832-4AD6-9E60-41FF1C6D20B6.thumb.jpeg.57686560eaaf5bf9dbb1aba6d701e8ab.jpeg86CDB8FF-D8DF-4142-A081-B515199582A9.thumb.jpeg.18de08fb473aa4890d2b8b15ce683aec.jpeg
 

Let’s all hope this one goes to trial. The LOL’s at gun control groups would be phenomenal 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radio interview today with Dan Caulkins. He dropped today that on 11/15, SCOTUS requested the case file from the IL Supreme Court. This case is seriously being considered, and it’s not just on the gun ban grounds, but also all the conflicts of interest/money/separation of powers thrown in (corruption/integrity of the courts) https://www.wjpf.com/episode/newsradio-wjpf-interview-with-dan-caulkins-november-17-2023/

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2023 at 12:15 PM, steveTA84 said:

Radio interview today with Dan Caulkins. He dropped today that on 11/15, SCOTUS requested the case file from the IL Supreme Court. This case is seriously being considered, and it’s not just on the gun ban grounds, but also all the conflicts of interest/money/separation of powers thrown in (corruption/integrity of the courts) https://www.wjpf.com/episode/newsradio-wjpf-interview-with-dan-caulkins-november-17-2023/

NICE B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now remember, the case file will

have the motions to recuse and the denials. Rochford’s was particularly hostile. That’s gonna be good and the meat and potatoes of everything here that’s being requested (other than the obvious stuff regarding the gun ban). What may torpedo this case though is the fact a 2A claim wasn’t made, however, Caulkins did say in the interview that they didn’t do that because the ILSC kicks those cases back and also lower courts transfer them to federal courts, so his reasoning is somewhat ok 

Edited by steveTA84
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...