Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[mab22]

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...

So I guess the only protected speech will be that which is done with a quill and an ink well. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 11/20/2023 at 4:05 PM, mab22 said:

So I guess the only protected speech will be that which is done with a quill and an ink well. 

 

Yeah, I'm not buying that their attempt is to introduce a time stamp to our rights just to go after semi-autos because PICA bans way more than just modern semi-auto rifles.   I think it is evident that the new military test will be used to go after all guns.  Democrats have been saying that the 2nd only covers muskets, yet here comes Easterbrook.. he introduced a test that will ban them all.  

[springfield shooter]

On 11/20/2023 at 4:33 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Yeah, I'm not buying that their attempt is to introduce a time stamp to our rights just to go after semi-autos because PICA bans way more than just modern semi-auto rifles.   I think it is evident that the new military test will be used to go after all guns.  Democrats have been saying that the 2nd only covers muskets, yet here comes Easterbrook.. he introduced a test that will ban them all.  

 Yeah. How does Judge Easterbrook's test square with Bruen? Pretty sure it doesn't. Also pretty sure that (to be quite honest) the judge doesn't care.

[mab22]

On 11/20/2023 at 4:33 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Yeah, I'm not buying that their attempt is to introduce a time stamp to our rights just to go after semi-autos because PICA bans way more than just modern semi-auto rifles.   I think it is evident that the new military test will be used to go after all guns.  Democrats have been saying that the 2nd only covers muskets, yet here comes Easterbrook.. he introduced a test that will ban them all.  

I’m pretty sure they used the term MODERN in one of those cases, could have been the Massachusetts one regarding a less than lethal stun gun. 
But I don’t think Eastercrook is fond of sitting around and reading SCOTUS decisions when they disagree with his emotions on the subject matter.

[steveTA84]

On 11/20/2023 at 6:44 PM, mab22 said:

I’m pretty sure they used the term MODERN in one of those cases, could have been the Massachusetts one regarding a less than lethal stun gun. 
But I don’t think Eastercrook is fond of sitting around and reading SCOTUS decisions when they disagree with his emotions on the subject matter.

Caetano v. Massachusetts

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/

 

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010) . In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

 

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”  Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

 

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

 

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Hellerrejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

 

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

 

It is so ordered.

[Flynn]

On 11/20/2023 at 4:05 PM, mab22 said:

So I guess the only protected speech will be that which is done with a quill and an ink well. 

 

My guess is that if they had it their way, the only protected speech would be from government approved and permitted press, much like they want only government approved and permited actors can have guns...

[steveTA84]

Duke Firearm Law (who has never come out against a gun law, btw) mentioned the Caulkins case before SCOTUS, but as is no surprise, did NOT go into the reasons why it was appealed to SCOTUS. Gee, wonder why….

 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/11/scotus-gun-watch-week-of-11-20-23/

 

On November 9, a petition was filed in Caulkins v. Pritzker.  The case is a wide-ranging challenge to Illinois’ recently-enacted assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban, the Protect Illinois Communities Act or PICA.  The plaintiffs (a group of gunowners and businesses in Illinois) bring due process, equal protection, and Second Amendment claims.  In August, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, in a 4-3 decision, a state circuit court decision striking down the law on equal protection grounds related to the law’s exemptions for certain groups such as current and former law enforcement officers and grandfathered owners of prohibited weapons and accessories.  The plaintiffs raised a Second Amendment challenge for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court, which found the argument waived.  The dissenting supreme court justices focused primarily on legislative procedural irregularities.

The plaintiffs now seek certiorari, arguing primarily that certain state supreme court justices should have recused themselves from the case.  They also appear to raise Second Amendment-related and equal protection claims, arguing that the banned semiautomatic weapons are in common use and that “[a]ny historic tradition based on restricting possession by the dangerous, the infirm or persons who pose a danger to others is not measured by the date one procured the firearm to equate the prohibited with the dangerous.”  There seems to be a real question about whether the Second Amendment arguments are waived for failure to raise them at the trial court level.   The Seventh Circuit also recently released its decision in a pure Second Amendment challenge to PICA, upholding the law in Bevis v. Naperville primarily by relying on pre-Bruen circuit precedent.  While there is a strong possibility that the challengers in Bevis seek en banc review first, when compared to Caulkins, Bevis seems by far the more likely case to ultimately find its way onto the Supreme Court’s docket.

[Matt B]

On 11/21/2023 at 7:28 AM, steveTA84 said:

Duke Firearm Law (who has never come out against a gun law, btw) mentioned the Caulkins case before SCOTUS, but as is no surprise, did NOT go into the reasons why it was appealed to SCOTUS. Gee, wonder why….

 

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/11/scotus-gun-watch-week-of-11-20-23/

 

On November 9, a petition was filed in Caulkins v. Pritzker.  The case is a wide-ranging challenge to Illinois’ recently-enacted assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban, the Protect Illinois Communities Act or PICA.  The plaintiffs (a group of gunowners and businesses in Illinois) bring due process, equal protection, and Second Amendment claims.  In August, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, in a 4-3 decision, a state circuit court decision striking down the law on equal protection grounds related to the law’s exemptions for certain groups such as current and former law enforcement officers and grandfathered owners of prohibited weapons and accessories.  The plaintiffs raised a Second Amendment challenge for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court, which found the argument waived.  The dissenting supreme court justices focused primarily on legislative procedural irregularities.

The plaintiffs now seek certiorari, arguing primarily that certain state supreme court justices should have recused themselves from the case.  They also appear to raise Second Amendment-related and equal protection claims, arguing that the banned semiautomatic weapons are in common use and that “[a]ny historic tradition based on restricting possession by the dangerous, the infirm or persons who pose a danger to others is not measured by the date one procured the firearm to equate the prohibited with the dangerous.”  There seems to be a real question about whether the Second Amendment arguments are waived for failure to raise them at the trial court level.   The Seventh Circuit also recently released its decision in a pure Second Amendment challenge to PICA, upholding the law in Bevis v. Naperville primarily by relying on pre-Bruen circuit precedent.  While there is a strong possibility that the challengers in Bevis seek en banc review first, when compared to Caulkins, Bevis seems by far the more likely case to ultimately find its way onto the Supreme Court’s docket.

They should be renamed “Duke Center for Preservation of Firearms Laws” as they are essentially a gun ban advocacy group masquerading as legal academia. 
 

That said, I do worry scotus will decline this case for the reasons they mention.

[SiliconSorcerer]

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-state-board-of-elections-all-for-justice-fine-20231121-uzvzy5bjlbcujfxccsulp2bktu-story.html

(doesn't seem to be behind a paywall.

 

Democratic PAC shifts cash out of its account as it gets hit with one of the biggest state election board fines ever

 

A political committee that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court and was backed by Illinois Senate President Don Harmon emptied its bank account just weeks after being notified it faced one of the largest state election fines ever for failing to timely disclose millions of dollars it spent until after last November’s election.

On Tuesday, the State Board of Elections issued a final order assessing $99,500 in fines against the All for Justice political action committee. The action followed a Tribune story earlier this year detailing the PAC’s reporting deficiencies as it spent more than $7.3 million on independent expenditures supporting Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien, both of whom won their campaigns and increased the court’s Democratic majority to 5-2 from a previous 4-3 advantage.

 

(continues)

[steveTA84]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:04 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-state-board-of-elections-all-for-justice-fine-20231121-uzvzy5bjlbcujfxccsulp2bktu-story.html

(doesn't seem to be behind a paywall.

 

Democratic PAC shifts cash out of its account as it gets hit with one of the biggest state election board fines ever

 

A political committee that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court and was backed by Illinois Senate President Don Harmon emptied its bank account just weeks after being notified it faced one of the largest state election fines ever for failing to timely disclose millions of dollars it spent until after last November’s election.

On Tuesday, the State Board of Elections issued a final order assessing $99,500 in fines against the All for Justice political action committee. The action followed a Tribune story earlier this year detailing the PAC’s reporting deficiencies as it spent more than $7.3 million on independent expenditures supporting Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien, both of whom won their campaigns and increased the court’s Democratic majority to 5-2 from a previous 4-3 advantage.

 

(continues)

Defendant Harmon broke campaign finance rules to get his justices on the bench. Yet another layer of corruption and conflicts of interest that should

have forced a recusal 

[steveTA84]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:04 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

spent more than $7.3 million on independent expenditures supporting Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien

That’s more than double that the defendant in Caperton V Massey used to bankroll his justice (and we know the outcome of this case)…. 

[mab22]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:25 AM, steveTA84 said:

Defendant Harmon broke campaign finance rules to get his justices on the bench. Yet another layer of corruption and conflicts of interest that should

have forced a recusal 

The trib and I have a disdain  for each other, so it’s behind a paywall. 
Do you think Harmon didn’t just give the double barreled middle finger to campaign finance laws to be in good graces with the Democrat party. They are all about THE PARTY, screw the plebs and the laws. 

[steveTA84]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:04 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-state-board-of-elections-all-for-justice-fine-20231121-uzvzy5bjlbcujfxccsulp2bktu-story.html

(doesn't seem to be behind a paywall.

 

Democratic PAC shifts cash out of its account as it gets hit with one of the biggest state election board fines ever

 

A political committee that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court and was backed by Illinois Senate President Don Harmon emptied its bank account just weeks after being notified it faced one of the largest state election fines ever for failing to timely disclose millions of dollars it spent until after last November’s election.

On Tuesday, the State Board of Elections issued a final order assessing $99,500 in fines against the All for Justice political action committee. The action followed a Tribune story earlier this year detailing the PAC’s reporting deficiencies as it spent more than $7.3 million on independent expenditures supporting Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien, both of whom won their campaigns and increased the court’s Democratic majority to 5-2 from a previous 4-3 advantage.

 

(continues)

The PAC was given 30 days to appeal or seek a reduction in the fines, but did not do so. Instead, on Aug. 31, it transferred its remaining cash balance of $149,516 to another independent expenditure committee, Chicago Independent Alliance, a PAC that has been dormant since July 2019, six months after it was created.

[Flynn]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:43 PM, mab22 said:

The trib and I have a disdain  for each other, so it’s behind a paywall. 

 

https://archive.is/GcBg7

 

www.archive.is will bypass most paywalls and 9/10 they already have the site archived anyway 

Edited November 22, 2023 at 11:07 PM by Flynn

[steveTA84]

On 11/22/2023 at 5:06 PM, Flynn said:

 

https://archive.is/GcBg7

 

www.archive.is will bypass most paywalls and 9/10 they already have the site archived anyway 

Basically, Harmon’s PAC, which was 40% of the cash behind Rochford and O’Brien, broke the law. This is a whole new can of worms that can be opened and a whole new route of attack can be done. You know, when you’re bankrolled by the head of the senate and they do break laws to finance you…..

 

I hope Jerry Stocks does something to this and files an additional file for SCOTUS 
 

 

 

 

 

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 candidates — went undisclosed until the end of January, months after the election.
 

Because it began spending money on Sept. 29, within 60 days of the Nov. 8, 2022, election, All for Justice was required to file detailed public reports within two days for each expenditure of $1,000 or more that it made on behalf of Rochford and O’Brien or against Curran and Burke. Instead, they filed nothing until amended reports were filed months after the election.

 

Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois at Springfield and a campaign finance expert, called the actions of All for Justice in shedding its bank account “the moral and ethical equivalent of hiding assets before filing for divorce or bankruptcy.”

 

“The Illinois campaign finance law relies on transparency and timely reporting to (ensure) that the general public and the news media know who is supporting a candidate for public office,” Redfield said. “When the system is working correctly, citizens and the news media know in real time where the money supporting elections comes from and who it is benefiting.”

 

But, he said, “A willful violation of this magnitude strikes at the heart of the trust and sense of legitimacy that is necessary to sustain our political system.”

 

Although All for Justice did not file timely expenditure reports, it did file the mandated timely reports on money it was taking in from contributors, indicating an awareness of the state’s campaign finance laws.

 

All for Justice filed quarterly reports on what it raised and spent, but because the filing of the report covering Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2022, was not required until Jan. 17, it wasn’t until more than two months after the election that the group publicly disclosed spending nearly $6 million of its $7.3 million in independent expenditures.

And even then, it did not list which candidates it spent money on to benefit from the work of specific vendors, such as those involved in nearly $6.3 million in TV ads and nearly $800,000 in mailers, as required by law.

Edited November 23, 2023 at 01:03 AM by steveTA84

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Shouldn't people be going to jail for this?

 

VooDoo

[Yeti]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:21 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Shouldn't people be going to jail for this?

Nah, the laws they pass are only for people like us to follow, not for politicians…

 

In the meantime, they are preparing to make us felons for owning pieces of plastic. 

[Upholder]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:21 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Shouldn't people be going to jail for this?

 

Only if their convictions are not overturned by the Illinois State Supreme Court...........

[davel501]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:21 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Shouldn't people be going to jail for this?

 

VooDoo

 

Who is going to arrest or prosecute them? I doubt any federal laws were broken. 

 

Best hope is scotus gets so angry at the egregious nature of all this that they lay waste to everything. 

[steveTA84]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:21 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Shouldn't people be going to jail for this?

 

VooDoo

At the very least, this strengthens Caulkins’ argument  in his petition to SCOTUS for a tainted ruling. Hey, look who’s listed lol. It ain’t just Pritzker, and Harmon, in his offical capacity as Senate President, is responsible for his PAC (which made up 40% of all money for Rochford and O’Brien), broke campaign finance laws to make it happen. It’s really bad, and as I have always said in the other thread, this whole

case was ripe for being overturned.  

 

Reminder too on what they (SCOTUS) had to adopt because of Justice Thomas hanging out with rich friends who had a third party case before them. Taste of the Dems own medicine in terms crushing ethics breeches on the court? All because of the efforts of a IL Senator lol 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 at 01:44 AM by steveTA84

[mab22]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:32 PM, Upholder said:

 

Only if their convictions are not overturned by the Illinois State Supreme Court...........

Talk about a racket,  

Senators and PARTY, fund judges on Supreme Court, same funded Judges can decode their fate. 
Madigan must do doing a HOLY Sh1#!, now that’s how it’s done boys and girls! 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

It's pure bribery and seemingly nothing will be done about it. 

 

VooDoo

[Upholder]

On 11/23/2023 at 8:22 AM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

It's pure bribery and seemingly nothing will be done about it.

 

Absolutely nothing will be done about it.  I assume you're aware this is Illinois.

[steveTA84]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:04 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-state-board-of-elections-all-for-justice-fine-20231121-uzvzy5bjlbcujfxccsulp2bktu-story.html

(doesn't seem to be behind a paywall.

 

Democratic PAC shifts cash out of its account as it gets hit with one of the biggest state election board fines ever

 

A political committee that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court and was backed by Illinois Senate President Don Harmon emptied its bank account just weeks after being notified it faced one of the largest state election fines ever for failing to timely disclose millions of dollars it spent until after last November’s election.

On Tuesday, the State Board of Elections issued a final order assessing $99,500 in fines against the All for Justice political action committee. The action followed a Tribune story earlier this year detailing the PAC’s reporting deficiencies as it spent more than $7.3 million on independent expenditures supporting Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien, both of whom won their campaigns and increased the court’s Democratic majority to 5-2 from a previous 4-3 advantage.

 

(continues)

https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/652533606-campaign-committee-created-to-smear-gop-il-supreme-court-candidates-hit-with-big-campaign-finance-fine
 

The ad campaign targeted Republican state Supreme Court nominees former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran and former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Burke, particularly asserting that the Republicans would somehow overturn abortion rights in Illinois, which is led by Gov. JB Pritzker, regarded as one of the most enthusiastically pro-abortion governors in the country, and a pro-abortion Democratic supermajority in General Assembly.

The ads smeared the Republican candidates as ideologues who would rule in line with the wishes of conservative politicians. Those accusations came despite Rochford's and O'Brien's own campaign pledges in support of abortion rights and touted endorsements from left-wing political groups.

Rochford and O'Brien also received millions of dollars in donations from Pritzker, Harmon and Illinois House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch, the most powerful Democratic lawmaker in the state House.

Rochford and O'Brien have been publicly accused of violating Illinoisans' rights to due process by refusing to step aside from ruling on the constitutionality of controversial new laws supported by Pritzker, Harmon and Welch. 

Recently, challengers to the state's ban on so-called "assault weapons" has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and review the Illinois state high court's ruling, authored by Rochford, upholding the gun ban law. The challengers say Rochford and O'Brien refusal to recuse themselves in that case amounts to defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in the case known as Caperton v. Massey. In that case, the SCOTUS ruled that a West Virginia Supreme Court justice violated litigants' constitutional rights by refusing to recuse himself in a case in which he received substantial campaign support from one of the parties.

The All for Justice campaign was heavily bankrolled by the state's trial lawyers, as well as other big Democratic donors, such as labor unions, teachers unions, out-of-state left-wing political action committees, and hundreds of thousands of dollars from a campaign connected to Harmon himself.

Notably, the committee also received $500,000 from the Fair Fight group, associated with failed Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams.

The big donation from Abrams’ group was accepted despite Democrats’ protests that Republicans were intending to use big money donations from outside the state to fund state Supreme Court candidates in 2022. Democratic lawmakers cited those concerns in passing a law barring people from outside Illinois from donating directly to judicial campaigns and candidates in Illinois.

The law, however, exempted independent expenditure committees, like All for Justice, from the ban.

The race in 2022 was also literally shaped by Democratic lawmakers, who moved in 2021 to take the unprecedented step of gerrymandering Illinois State Supreme Court judicial district boundaries, in what critics said was a nakedly partisan move to prevent Republicans from potentially securing a majority on the court, using the old district lines that had remained unchanged since 1963.

[steveTA84]

Here’s Harmon’s PAC fine 

 

 

[crufflesmuth]

California and New York campaign tactics are very difficult to sell in a very class-stratified state.

[davel501]

On 11/23/2023 at 10:28 AM, steveTA84 said:

Here’s Harmon’s PAC fine 

 

 

 

I wonder if someone on the election board tipped him off. Probably just careful enough to do it in a format that can't be FOIA'd. 

[steveTA84]

From O’Brien’s dissent in the ILSC. While she sided with Caulkins, it wasn’t because she is pro-gun, it’s because PICA didn’t go far enough in reducing the amount of “assault weapons” or who could own them! This means that she wanted a more strict/widespread ban and that’s why she dissented. This is good, as it still shows her absolute bias (and in a legal opinion)  and (if we get to SCOTUS) can be used to counter Pritzker’s lawyers saying she ruled differently and that shows she wasn’t biased/ruling wasn’t tainted 

 

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/xmvjllgzqvr/08112023illinois_guns.pdf

[steveTA84]

O’Brien scrubbed her socials, and there’s nothing concrete that could show she was for a ban findable other than the endorsement of GPAC and MDA, but her LinkedIn is still active and up! She’s the only one that interacted with this post, and it’s calling for an AWB. Gotcha lol 

[steveTA84]