Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that the state is on record (Keanelly federal case) as saying SA‘s have discretion as to enforce this law or not. 
 

A01DA39C-AAC1-4343-9E46-DBF6D05A7C7A.jpeg.aed63fdeeeab990e9aee3e18166f5df4.jpeg
 

the state knows that in the long run, this law will be killed and is throwing anything and everything out there to see what will stick.  Curious as to how the state responds to the 33 SA’s brief LOL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Can anyone please explain to me what value  this TRO  has?  I am a member of the Exhibit A group in this TRO. My gun dealer is in the other case. The state police told him that we both have to be in the same lawsuit to proceed with a transfer. Why is that a thing? If the exempt people aka law-enforcement can purchase from a FFL why can't TRO people purchase?  

Edited by krm3051
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice is contact the lawyer you paid to represent you. 

 

State police are lying again. All devore cases (this is not thr devore thread but is the caulkins thread) have been merged into one case. The state deny rights through lies and purposeful misinterpretation.  

 

Find another ffl is the easy answer, but you shouldnt have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2023 at 11:41 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

My advice is contact the lawyer you paid to represent you. 

 

State police are lying again. All devore cases (this is not thr devore thread but is the caulkins thread) have been merged into one case. The state deny rights through lies and purposeful misinterpretation.  

 

Find another ffl is the easy answer, but you shouldnt have to.

  My FFL is more than willing to do a transfer, he has inventory he would like to move. I gave him a copy of my TRO, he contacted the ISP to verify my paper work and they told him that we both have to be  listed  on the same TRO. I understand his caution as a FFL not wanting to loose his licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call the lawyer you paid to represent you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2023 at 12:07 PM, krm3051 said:

  My FFL is more than willing to do a transfer, he has inventory he would like to move. I gave him a copy of my TRO, he contacted the ISP to verify my paper work and they told him that we both have to be  listed  on the same TRO. I understand his caution as a FFL not wanting to loose his licence.

Are you both on the Devore cases, or is one Devore and the other Caulkins?

If both are Devore it shouldn’t matter, and your FFL should know that. 
The State police probably don’t have a list of who is on what case, it would be scary if they were keeping track. 
 

If one is Devore and the Other is Caulkins, then both should call their attorneys they paid, not the police. The “police” are going to deny everyone to save their butts. 
Maybe get a better FFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said many times, but I can say again that police are not lawyers. They are not your lawyers. They are not the state's lawyers. Anything they tell you does not provide you with escape from legal or criminal liability, nor is the state bound by it. You cannot assume that they know the law or that they have your best interests at heart. You should assume the opposite.

 

In this particular case, you have a lawyer. Your FFL has a lawyer. You both have a TRO against the state. If you want it enforced, that's a job for your (real) lawyer and the (real) courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2023 at 1:36 PM, Euler said:

I have said many times, but I can say again that police are not lawyers. They are not your lawyers. They are not the state's lawyers. Anything they tell you does not provide you with escape from legal or criminal liability, nor is the state bound by it. You cannot assume that they know the law or that they have your best interests at heart. You should assume the opposite.

 

In my personal experience very few police actually know more than you average person on the street in regards to the law, many are very well versed on some topics like vehicle enforcement and parking violations (or the topic of an ordiance that is being pushed that month from above) but beyond that many know very little about the law overall, at least from my interactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2023 at 10:38 PM, mab22 said:

Keeps it tied up in the courts while the rotund one runs for Prez. Slow Joe won’t run, that leaves it open for the Tyrant to enter the running. 
What will be one of his “Key Achievements” other than trashing the state even more than it was? He “got rid of assault weapons”. 
So IL SC ties it up for, 6 months? Then there is the process to get it to the SCOTUS, 6 months to a year, assuming they hear it?
Plus the time for it to go to trial, wait for them to make a decision, probably on the Due Process part, but not 2A issue.

By the time this is all solved it’s at least 2024/25? 
If the 2A issue is resolved after the election or at least the primaries, it’s old news. 🤷‍♂️

 

This is all My uneducated guess based on how this one party state screws its citizens. 

 

I honestly believe there are more mature lawsuits in other states that will get to the SCOTUS first, the variable is going to be how soon it takes the SCOTUS to actually hear one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2023 at 9:54 PM, mab22 said:

You would have to ban “high cap mags”, and modern rifles from the police and all the other “specials”, not sure they would do that. 
They are off their meds, so they could. 

 

 

They have said repeatedly that those things are only for killing. The purpose of the police is to bring people to justice in a court of law. It's not a leap under their logic to say the police should have nothing more than revolvers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2023 at 9:54 PM, mab22 said:

You would have to ban “high cap mags”, and modern rifles from the police and all the other “specials”, not sure they would do that. 
They are off their meds, so they could. 

 

That is in interesting debate as they would in theory only have to ban those items from police and the specials when they were not on duty to kick out current equal protection claims aka leave your duty guns/mags at work. I would argue at the end of the day that police should not have any 'extra' 2nd rights in regards to carrying and weapons even on duty except in limited highly sensative places like courts and prisons, but that is a fight for another court in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2023 at 9:54 PM, mab22 said:

You would have to ban “high cap mags”, and modern rifles from the police and all the other “specials”, not sure they would do that. 
They are off their meds, so they could. 

 

I'm surprised they even gave the special people special rights.  I wouldn't put it past them to disarm the specials.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2023 at 8:10 AM, Jeffrey said:

I'm surprised they even gave the special people special rights.  I wouldn't put it past them to disarm the specials.  

they had to give the specials exemptions because the lobby groups for the specials were complaining hard. When they got their exemptions, the lobbyists shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2023 at 10:50 PM, Flynn said:

 

That is in interesting debate as they would in theory only have to ban those items from police and the specials when they were not on duty to kick out current equal protection claims aka leave your duty guns/mags at work. I would argue at the end of the day that police should not have any 'extra' 2nd rights in regards to carrying and weapons even on duty except in limited highly sensative places like courts and prisons, but that is a fight for another court in the future.

Didn't the state argue that less than 10rds is used in most officer involved shootings. If that's the case, then LE don't need to carry more than the "private citizen nobody" can carry. On a side note, I spoke with a retired CPD in March and he said he was on the phone with his state rep/senator everyday during the HB5471 legislation making process. I'm sure many other retired LE's from all across the state were pounding those airwaves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2023 at 11:52 AM, ealcala31 said:

Didn't the state argue that less than 10rds is used in most officer involved shootings. If that's the case, then LE don't need to carry more than the "private citizen nobody" can carry. On a side note, I spoke with a retired CPD in March and he said he was on the phone with his state rep/senator everyday during the HB5471 legislation making process. I'm sure many other retired LE's from all across the state were pounding those airwaves...

 

I bet if I, just a regular nobody, called my state Congress creature, and State Senate swamp thing everyday during a specific bill, they would call the police on me. 😞

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • mauserme pinned this topic

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...