Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

If I was the boss, I sure would use it as a teaching moment...  Let's hope the SC sees it that way. If I was forced to make a, "code of ethics," Wow, theat could be a very bite in the a$$ moment for those working against democracy and the constitutional court. :P

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2023 at 1:52 PM, John Q Public said:

If I was the boss, I sure would use it as a teaching moment...  Let's hope the SC sees it that way. If I was forced to make a, "code of ethics," Wow, theat could be a very bite in the a$$ moment for those working against democracy and the constitutional court. :P

Exactly. And our very own Dick Durbin was the spearheader of that 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I just thought of something. As you know, gun control groups do press releases and start screaming on the socials when there’s hi-stakes cases (Bruen, Rahimi, for example). If this case is granted cert, them purposely leaving out key info regarding gun control group endorsements and the Democrats in IL gov throwing lots is money around is gonna be hilarious to watch.  The whole reason for the darn appeal will

be ignored and attempted to be buried lol. It literally has the potential to severely handicap and make a mockery of gun control groups and their activism regarding judicial elections.
 

The case was kinda a stinker in IL court, but with what was filed and accepted to the docket w/SCOTUS, it’s a much bigger deal now with much wider implications overall

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So amongst the people who know lot's of stuff about this, what are the odds that SCOTUS will intervene before all of this is a "done deal"? We have like 6 weeks at this time for someone to put their foot down and tell PICA/Illinois to cease and desist until it can be properly scrutinized and assessed.

 

Is there any hope that can really happen? 

 

VooDoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2023 at 4:28 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

So amongst the people who know lot's of stuff about this, what are the odds that SCOTUS will intervene before all of this is a "done deal"? We have like 6 weeks at this time for someone to put their foot down and tell PICA/Illinois to cease and desist until it can be properly scrutinized and assessed.

 

Is there any hope that can really happen? 

 

VooDoo

Pritzker’s response to the SCOTUS petition is due 12/14, so who knows….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on the Caperton ruling. Again, parallel to what happened in Rochford/O’Brien’s case with Pritzker, Harmon and Welch 

 

viewcontent.cgi?article=6342&context=wvl
 

Blankenship went to extraordinary lengths to elect Benjamin. He gave $1, allowed under state law.25 He also gave $2.5 million to a non-profit organization 26 The organization took advantage of a provision of the federal tax code27 which allowed it to raise unlimited funds to engage in political advocacy without having to pay federal income taxes.28 Blankenship hir which ended up raising and spending a total of $3.7 million to elect Benjamin.29 Blankenship spent an additional $500,000 in independent campaign expenditures in support of Benjamin30 and gave $100,000 to another political action committee that was also working to defeat McGraw.31 In total, Blankenship spent over $3 million to elect Benjamin, which was more than the amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters combined, and three times the amou campaign spent.32 Benjamin ultimately unseated McGraw 53.3% to 46.7% in the November general election.

 

 

A reminder regarding Harmon’s involvement and the money to the justices. 

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-supreme-court-money-helps-dem-justices-20230204-gntd3tx6qbd47hbyxz7u5z6glu-story.html
 

A political committee, funded in part by Senate President Don Harmon’s campaign that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court, failed to file timely campaign reports as required by state law and didn’t disclose the bulk of its $7.3 million in spending until after the election.

The committee — All for Justice — spent heavily on television ads in support of winning Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien. The commercials painted Republican opponents as virulent anti-abortion candidates, politically potent attacks given the U.S. Supreme Court decision that sent the issue of abortion rights to the states only months earlier.

 

The failure of All for Justice to follow the disclosure guidelines mandated by state election law obscured its pro-Democratic spending in the critical months preceding the November races in which the partisan balance of the Illinois Supreme Court was up for grabs.

“It’s amazing,” said Kent Redfield, an Illinois campaign finance expert and professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “It denied the public, the news media and the people who participated in the campaigns full knowledge of what’s going on.”

By not following the disclosure rules, the spending by All for Justice — which represented a quarter of the more than $23 million spent overall on the two Supreme Court races and nearly 40% of the money behind the Democratic judicial candidates — went undisclosed until months after the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2023 at 4:28 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

So amongst the people who know lot's of stuff about this, what are the odds that SCOTUS will intervene before all of this is a "done deal"? We have like 6 weeks at this time for someone to put their foot down and tell PICA/Illinois to cease and desist until it can be properly scrutinized and assessed.

 

Is there any hope that can really happen? 

 

My hope is that it was docketed for a real interest reason, I'm feeling that there is probably a better than 50% chance they might intervene in some capacity, but it's still a long shot as the Supreme Court is almost always slow and cautious in their response...  I also personally believe they really want to use Rahimi as the BIG messenger to the lower courts and want to deliver that ruling with a flash bang effect that is heard loud and clear vs a distraction or pre-mature reveal like this case...  Although that said this case does allow them to nuke the ruling for other reasons while entirely avoiding 2nd issues for now so that gives me hope they may move on it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2023 at 10:23 PM, steveTA84 said:

Ding ding ding. Thus why this case before SCOTUS was always another route to attack 

 

Can you imagine the court saying there can be no 'cutouts' and 'exemptions' for 2nd rights as that violates the 14th and 2nd, it would be a tidal wave rippling across the nation...

 

BTW that is how it should be and have been all along, but to get a ruling like that from the Supreme Court so soon would be epic...

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only carve out left is for LEO, retired LEOs and Military. 

 

The private security etc was smashed in the latest adopted that the individual can not have any of the banned items in their possession when not working, or access to them, unless registered. Only the business may own them, without registration, excluding FFLs as well. Since a business can't have a FOID card, and even with an FFL which are also excluded. This excludes any PI from having, or using these firearms. Since even if the firearm was registered, for a person, and used for a business, it would have to comply with ammunition limits and be a huge liability, for an individual, since there is no path to having the arms owned by the business.

 

So now PI/PD or security could only have pistols with mags holding 15 or less, and the limits on rifles and shotguns would be as civilian and therefore not able to be used unless configured as such, with massive liability for the individual. The way it usually works for private is you buy your own firearms and then you are comped by the company, or not. 

 

If any rich person, or politician is using private security, that is not LEO, or retired LEO, they are, most likely, in violation.

 

The bottom line is they want everything registered unless you are LEO, or Military. 

 

 

 

The was a hunting exemption too, but that was only while actually hunting and thus is moot too.

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a million with a loophole for the 500k limit is a no brainier and since the SC is adopting the code, all courts should abide the same code. I think the left really, shot themselves in the foot," with this one. They can't cry about it since they were driving it to manipulate the SC. If I were them I'd be making that thing iron clad and adopted through the entire judicial. :P

 

This could be interesting. 

 

I'd also like to see them look at the lawyers passing laws which they know to be unconstitutional, and or convoluted to the point you have to assign a task force to keep tweaking it forever under emergency rules. If the law is lawful and just, it should stand on it's own and be clear, concise, and with the specificity to be understood without having mass confusion.  

 

They always want to talk,  "Common sense,"  okay, let's have some common sense where the law doesn't require me to go to my children's toy box and pull toys apart to make sure there isn't some, arbitrary, part in the toys I built them, nor make me a criminal because I don't know where every spring or screw is which may be used to build a firearm, not to mention, going after us, or our children, for Airsoft, or paintball.

 

PICA is an abomination, and does nothing to keep us safer, it's about getting the guns...  Anyone who doesn't see this by now is lying, or ignorant. They used to say," we aren't coming after your guns," but now we seem to be like the frog in the pot, they eased up the temp and we are getting cooked. 

 

I see it happening this way, you register them and time goes by more shooting happen. Then one day we get another nutbag and it's an exceptionally bad one, and they jump into Covid mode and declare it whatever and for the good of everyone we must get rid of all the modern rifles and large mags. Next comes the knock at the door for all those registered and suspected. 

 

Does anyone not see this happening at some point if we don't strike down these type of laws?  

 

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long game may be to ramp up declarations that "gun violence" as a health emergency, while spewing false statistics and ignoring gang violence, severe mental issues, etc. The army of Karens will believe that guns are the leading cause of death among "children". It's a short step to then require registrations with public access to addresses just as sex offenders are registered and trackable by anyone who wants their neighborhood to be "safe from dangerous predators".

 

A cousin who works in the courts was describing a one-time sex offender who must document and report every interaction they have with people beyond a short list of "approved" contacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caulkins case was cited in the recent 7th Circuit CoA vacating of the injunction. So now we have a federal level CoA using the tainted case to uphold the law…

 

curious…..if SCOTUS grants cert, can’t the plantiffs make a note of this and either ask for reconsideration and/or make this made aware for the en banc?

 

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press Room/Press Releases/2023/November/20231103 Opinion.pdf

 

CDBE61FB-4790-4406-9B8A-5D10CD927D7C.thumb.jpeg.39ebb1862115b2f47172da1def43f8b4.jpeg3904D29C-6526-4C90-A951-81FFAD2715E7.thumb.jpeg.11c59278db058310639433a5312d0625.jpegA4303B3A-68D6-4356-A6E1-4E92764329DE.thumb.jpeg.c9c95b6cc4dee3bffb07b3ea2f34f44d.jpeg1F957CE2-169D-43EE-A08B-C255926F27B7.thumb.jpeg.c5ec41315b90842f2c135b58b807428f.jpeg6649B028-DD9A-4B57-911A-7A297794FD24.thumb.jpeg.b1006f2d4b91d81e2a9b7b27d3fafb37.jpeg3F818E5E-D0F4-4347-A860-5F81CD0846F1.thumb.jpeg.9086ca244fcac80817e7f3675832f78f.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 11:00 AM, John Q Public said:

 

PICA is an abomination, and does nothing to keep us safer, it's about getting the guns...  Anyone who doesn't see this by now is lying, or ignorant. They used to say," we aren't coming after your guns," but now we seem to be like the frog in the pot, they eased up the temp and we are getting cooked. 

 

I see it happening this way, you register them and time goes by more shooting happen. Then one day we get another nutbag and it's an exceptionally bad one, and they jump into Covid mode and declare it whatever and for the good of everyone we must get rid of all the modern rifles and large mags. Nest comes the knock at the door for all those registered and suspected. 

 

Does anyone not see this happening at some point if we don't strike down these type of laws?  

 

 

Agreed and I certainly think a lot of bad things are gonna happen once the door of disarmament is opened. We need to find Judges and Representation who will abide by the Constitution and their oaths to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. Sadly I think the odds are stacked against US until someone discovers the "Root Cause" of the mass murders.

 

VooDoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple:

 

Lack of family and imposed boundaries and limitations on children. Basically lack of parenting skills.

Promoting a system of entitlement and victim-hood.

People who vote for those who would support their entitlements no matter how corrupt the rest of their agenda.

Systematic persecution of faith.

Schools thinking they are parents, and their crazy curricula.

The shut down of our metal health facilities forcing justice and jails to deal with it, of which they haven't the means, so it's a revolving door.

Political issues and Justice being co-opted, and used for nefarious purpose.  IE the same justice for all, not one for left and another for middle and right.

Big money driving us further and further down a socialist path, and buying their votes with tons of cash. 

Stop training criminals, by making excuses for their age, and hold them accountable for their actions.

There are plenty of laws on the books, start enforcing them without bias. Now they just call for more laws because the aren't enforcing what we already have. 

Politicians making millions of dollars for doing a job that pays them well below that mark. Bought.

 

I could go on for pages, but it won't change anything.

 

No signs posted requiring crazy people not enter. 

 

 

 

Edited by John Q Public
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 10:49 AM, John Q Public said:

The only carve out left is for LEO, retired LEOs and Military.

 

And those exemptions should not exist, in this law or any other firearm-related law, especially for retired or off duty LEO that should absolutely be treated the same as everyone else when not on the clock and/or retired...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epoch times covering the case https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/u-s-supreme-court-asked-to-rule-on-illinois-ban-on-semiautomatic-weapons-5532431

 

An Illinois state lawmaker has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the state’s ban on certain semi-automatic weapons.

State Rep. Dan Caulkins, a Republican, told local media outlets that he is petitioning the high court because he believes the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban is tainted. He argued that Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien should have recused themselves from the case earlier this year, saying that both judges received donations from the Gun Violence Prevention PAC, which has called for “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,” Mr. Caulkins told ABC20-TV, adding that Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, and other Democrats have also given donations to those justices.

“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,” he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 1:12 PM, steveTA84 said:

Caulkins case was cited in the recent 7th Circuit CoA vacating of the injunction. So now we have a federal level CoA using the tainted case to uphold the law…

 

curious…..if SCOTUS grants cert, can’t the plantiffs make a note of this and either ask for reconsideration and/or make this made aware for the en banc?

 

https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press Room/Press Releases/2023/November/20231103 Opinion.pdf

 

CDBE61FB-4790-4406-9B8A-5D10CD927D7C.thumb.jpeg.39ebb1862115b2f47172da1def43f8b4.jpeg3904D29C-6526-4C90-A951-81FFAD2715E7.thumb.jpeg.11c59278db058310639433a5312d0625.jpegA4303B3A-68D6-4356-A6E1-4E92764329DE.thumb.jpeg.c9c95b6cc4dee3bffb07b3ea2f34f44d.jpeg1F957CE2-169D-43EE-A08B-C255926F27B7.thumb.jpeg.c5ec41315b90842f2c135b58b807428f.jpeg6649B028-DD9A-4B57-911A-7A297794FD24.thumb.jpeg.b1006f2d4b91d81e2a9b7b27d3fafb37.jpeg3F818E5E-D0F4-4347-A860-5F81CD0846F1.thumb.jpeg.9086ca244fcac80817e7f3675832f78f.jpeg

Brought up today on Bishop On Air 

https://x.com/bishoponair/status/1726599204204900810?s=46&t=ZJIYNr-TwO9eZdQE_UykAg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The present cases, which we have consolidated for disposition, relate to the types of “Arms” that are covered by the Second Amendment.2 This presents a line-drawing problem. Everyone can agree that a personal handgun, used for self defense, is one of those Arms that law-abiding citizens must be free to “keep and bear.” Everyone can also agree, we hope, that a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy Crockett system, with its 51-pound W54 warhead, can be reserved for the military, even though it is light enough for one person to carry.3 Many weapons, however, lie between these extremes. The State of Illinois, in the legislation that lies at the heart of these cases, has decided to regulate assault weapons and high-capacity magazines—a decision that is valid only if the regulated weapons lie on the military side of that line and thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment.

 

This concept of regarding some types of firearms as "not suitable arms" to be protected by the 2A is disturbing to me. Equating an AR platform to a nuclear weapon is ridiculous but we have people interpreting the Constitution now that think possession of a semi automatic firearm with a collapsing stock, handguard, and the capability of accepting a "large capacity ammuntion feeding device" is not protected by the 2A. 

 

So the 2A was only written into the Constitution to protect handguns and self defense using these? I have a bad feeling about where this might go at the SCOTUS level.

 

VooDoo

Edited by Vodoun da Vinci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2023 at 8:49 AM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

So the 2A was only written into the Constitution to protect handguns and self defense using these? I have a bad feeling about where this might go at the SCOTUS level.

 

The liberal-leaning SCOTUS justices are in a pickle now after Heller/Bruen , if they succeed in ruling that these common firearms are not protected because they are 'new advances' they will have overturned a long precedent and make the Constitution frozen in time leaving a future court based on that ruling the ability to rule rights like the 1st and 4th are not applicable to TV, radio, computers, cell phones and the internet and the can of worms that opens is epic...  Basically, the Constitution is entirely over at that point, and the people will likely be looking at that first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence for guidance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2023 at 2:52 PM, Flynn said:

 

The liberal-leaning SCOTUS justices are in a pickle now after Heller/Bruen , if they succeed in ruling that these common firearms are not protected because they are 'new advances' they will have overturned a long precedent and make the Constitution frozen in time leaving a future court based on that ruling the ability to rule rights like the 1st and 4th are not applicable to TV, radio, computers, cell phones and the internet and the can of worms that opens is epic...  Basically, the Constitution is entirely over at that point, and the people will likely be looking at that first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence for guidance...

 

You have exactly described that "bad feeling" I referenced.

 

VooDoo

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...