Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[mab22]

On 3/11/2023 at 3:54 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

And the AG's Office and ISP aren't being forthcoming with a direct statement about enforcement. The ISP statement regarding enforcement could apply to any case.  Right now it looks like the ISP is still enforcing the law:  https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/81347-hb5471-gets-even-worse-for-ffls/

 

 

The AG's office is trying to have it both ways.   According to Caulkins' legal team, in order to get this type of appeal before the ILSC the AG's office has to acknowledge to the supreme court that the law is null and void and unenforceable.  By being ambiguous, the AG gets a fast track while still being able to enforce the law, or at least threaten to enforce it.

 

 The democrats are also experts when it comes to controlling the optics.  Perception often becomes reality, and they don't want any cracks appearing in the dam.  

 

     

 

 

So Calukins would have to go to the IL SC and get them to stop enforcing, or back to the county judge? Either way its sounding more and more like the AG and ISP are ignoring the ruling, and need a judge to grab them by the ears and explain it to them.

 

Here's the ISP page on what the new regs are, they make no mention it was found unconstitutional  and/or is pending appeal. I would say that it is being enforced.

https://isp.illinois.gov/Home/HB5471Faqs

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 3/13/2023 at 5:40 PM, mab22 said:

 

So Calukins would have to go to the IL SC and get them to stop enforcing, or back to the county judge? Either way its sounding more and more like the AG and ISP are ignoring the ruling, and need a judge to grab them by the ears and explain it to them.

 

Here's the ISP page on what the new regs are, they make no mention it was found unconstitutional  and/or is pending appeal. I would say that it is being enforced.

https://isp.illinois.gov/Home/HB5471Faqs

 

 

 

 

I think we are seeing a preview on how IL is going to deal with the law being struck down by the higher courts.  My +1 tin foil hat (+3 vs commies) tells me IL is going to say F off, make us stop enforcing the law.  Some leftist judges will still allow prosecution. ISP and local PDs will still arrest and go after FFLs.  I think it will be a **** show until someone makes them stop. And nobody in IL's government or the Potato Admin will make them stop.  Just like is happening now.  

 

[mab22]

On 3/13/2023 at 6:20 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

 

I think we are seeing a preview on how IL is going to deal with the law being struck down by the higher courts.  My +1 tin foil hat (+3 vs commies) tells me IL is going to say F off, make us stop enforcing the law.  Some leftist judges will still allow prosecution. ISP and local PDs will still arrest and go after FFLs.  I think it will be a **** show until someone makes them stop. And nobody in IL's government or the Potato Admin will make them stop.  Just like is happening now.  

 

So complete lawlessness, and ground zero for CW 2?
 

[mab22]

Update on why there is NOT a State wide BAN on the AWB ban.

Rumor has it FFL's were selling stuff when they THOUGHT it was a statewide ban, and the State Police showed up to correct. 

 

I am NOT AN ATTORNEY, you can go hire one and get clarification on your own.

I am going to try and explain what I heard from MY attorney, not that it creates any special relationship with anyone, as to why we don't have a State wide TRO on AWB ban case.

A county judge can declare a law unconstitutional. However, a circuit/county judge does not have the authority/jurisdiction to actually make it a state wide ban.

All that does\can do is accelerate it to the Supreme court to make that determination on the laws constitutionality. The Supreme Court can issue the state wide TRO/Injunction.

The Devore case has a TRO as the TRO came from the appellate court, not a circuit court.

 

As an example, the SAFETY ACT case was found unconstitutional by a county judge. Where was the state wide TRO on the SAFETY ACT?

It came from the IL Supreme Court.

 

So that's it in a pretty compact explanation.

Feel free to consult your own attorney for further clarification.

 

[mab22]

Mr. Devore had nothing but positive things to say about Mr. @Tvandermyde and his case/cases.

Thank you Mr. V!

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Todd V released a video tonight.  ISP sent out guidance that the Caulkins court ruling of unconstitutional doesn't apply state wide and the ISP is still enforcing the AWB.  

 

 

[jcable2]

The state police have no backbone and will do exactly as JB tells them. The judge could come out this afternoon and say yes it applies state wide and they will still vow down to JB. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 3/17/2023 at 11:39 AM, jcable2 said:

The state police have no backbone and will do exactly as JB tells them. The judge could come out this afternoon and say yes it applies state wide and they will still vow down to JB. 

Maybe we would just have to donate to his re-election campaign to get him to do this? 

[Jeffrey]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:06 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Maybe we would just have to donate to his re-election campaign to get him to do this? 

I already made one to Devore...

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:15 PM, Jeffrey said:

I already made one to Devore...

If anything he would try and block the judge. 

 

[mab22]

On 3/17/2023 at 11:39 AM, jcable2 said:

The state police have no backbone and will do exactly as JB tells them. The judge could come out this afternoon and say yes it applies state wide and they will still vow down to JB. 

 

The reason why it doesn't apply state wide has been posted a page or two prior to this.

 

[jcable2]

On 3/17/2023 at 12:44 PM, mab22 said:

 

The reason why it doesn't apply state wide has been posted a page or two prior to this.

 

Devore, JB, the AG and State police are ignoring the definition of facially unconstitutional though with those opinions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge

A law that has been declared facially unconstitutional completely voids the law as if it never existed. That is settled case law. 

 

[mab22]

<sarcasm on>
Maybe some people should march down to the ISP HQ, Governors office, AG office, and the IL Supreme Court to

D E M A N D  they uphold the county judge’s unconstitutional ruling. 

<sarcasm off> 

 

[steveTA84]

State Police and AG’s Office not releasing guidance post-decision. They’re redacting the guidance under “attorney/client privilege”. I’m leaning in the direction that this opens the door for potential further emergency litigation, as why would they redact guidelines of it was on the grounds of what they want?

 

Edited March 20, 2023 at 01:26 PM by steveTA84

[yurimodin]

On 3/20/2023 at 8:26 AM, steveTA84 said:

State Police and AG’s Office not releasing guidance post-decision. They’re redacting the guidance under “attorney/client privilege”. I’m leaning in the direction that this opens the door for potential further emergency litigation, as why would they redact guidelines of it was on the grounds of what they want?

 

Can A/C privilege even be claimed if you have qualified immunity??????

[steveTA84]

 

[Molly B.]

Where is the link to isp faq about the ban?

[mikew]

On 3/20/2023 at 12:59 PM, Molly B. said:

Where is the link to isp faq about the ban?

Of course it would not be on ISPFSB.com.

https://isp.illinois.gov/Home/HB5471Faqs

 

 

[Molly B.]

I know,  I looked all over the fsb pages!

 

Thank you,  MikeW

[mab22]

Is the ISP even a defendant in the case, how could they claim attorney client privilege?

They are not listed in the case.

Perhaps this will be the next line that gets regurgitated every time someone files a FOIA now for any reason.

 

 

 

[mab22]

States filing, 107 pages.

2A is STILL NOT a Federal or State fundamental right. (For the purposes of an equal protection claim)

A full copy is posted here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osSTZrkYakuejYkirIg5rnOuKpOc4Ir6/view

 

Quote

(2) neither the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution nor the Illinois Constitution’s right to bear arms in Article I,
Section 22 is a fundamental right for purposes of an equal protection claim,
meaning that rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny should apply;
and (3) the assault weapons and LCM restrictions, and their exemptions,
satisfy rational basis review.

 

[Flynn]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:15 PM, mab22 said:

States filing, 107 pages.

2A is STILL NOT a Federal or State fundamental right. (For the purposes of an equal protection claim)

A full copy is posted here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osSTZrkYakuejYkirIg5rnOuKpOc4Ir6/view

 

 

 

I would argue McDonald v. City of Chicago says otherwise...

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:15 PM, mab22 said:

States filing, 107 pages.

2A is STILL NOT a Federal or State fundamental right. (For the purposes of an equal protection claim)

A full copy is posted here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1osSTZrkYakuejYkirIg5rnOuKpOc4Ir6/view

 

 

 

The State went to plaid tard.  

 

 

[Flynn]

On 4/3/2023 at 4:43 PM, yurimodin said:

After they passed this unconstitutional "law" Rich went on a tirade about how since the Bill of Rights were Amendments then they were "afterthoughts" and not that important........its just communists showing their true colors.

 

Well I guess we know how he feels about the slaves being free and women voting since they were after-after-afterthoughts and clearly not imporatant at all.

[steveTA84]

On 4/3/2023 at 4:43 PM, yurimodin said:

After they passed this unconstitutional "law" Rich went on a tirade about how since the Bill of Rights were Amendments then they were "afterthoughts" and not that important........its just communists showing their true colors.

Speaking of, explains a lot .....

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_02992df0-b960-11e9-b6c5-07096fc18616.html
 

An Illinois politics blogger who receives tens of thousands of dollars from state government agencies wouldn't comment on whether his post about Confederate Railroad and subsequent texts to the governor’s staff had anything to do with the abrupt cancellation of the band’s performance at the DuQuoin State Fair.

Rich Miller writes the Capitol Fax blog, a subscription-based newsletter and website. In fiscal year 2018, Miller received $35,736 from state government. He received $34,791 in fiscal year 2019. So far for the fiscal year that started July 1, he’s received $1,500, according to the latest public records. Most of the payments to Miller were line items of $500 from various state agencies throughout the year, including the General Assembly. Miller sells both subscriptions to and advertisements on Capitol Fax.
 

The Center Square obtained text messages and emails to and from Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s office through the Freedom of Information Act. Those messages show on June 17, the same day Miller posted a blog questioning the band’s scheduled performance, Miller sent a text to the governor’s deputy press secretary, Emily Bittner................
 

 

[steveTA84]

 

[Molly B.]

Here's a copy of the Amicus Brief!

Amicus Brief.pdf

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 4/10/2023 at 4:10 PM, Molly B. said:

Here's a copy of the Amicus Brief!

Amicus Brief.pdf 638.92 kB · 12 downloads

 

I'm very impressed and only halfway through so far. 

[jcable2]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:34 PM, steveTA84 said:

 

I see the coward SA from Edgar County is not on here. He is just as bad as his predecessor that got promoted to judge last year. 

[Yettiblood]

Tazewell and Peoria county ???  Nope.  Not surprised at all.