Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[ealcala31]

On 4/21/2023 at 8:34 PM, mab22 said:

Not sure I am following the progressive thought, the poor should expect to be left alone and poor, from their government?
I wish all .gov would leave us alone and let us be poor, rich, middle income, don’t want to be classified, broke a@@, or what ever financial status you wish to identify as. 

The people from the "South" didn't want the politician's help, they just wanted her to go away. The politician was telling the interviewer how the "Southerners needed food stamps, healthcare, affordable housing, and more government assistance than what Conservative governments offer. I'm sure the "Southerners" were remembering the ol' Reagan line, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[mab22]

On 4/21/2023 at 9:35 PM, ealcala31 said:

The people from the "South" didn't want the politician's help, they just wanted her to go away. The politician was telling the interviewer how the "Southerners needed food stamps, healthcare, affordable housing, and more government assistance than what Conservative governments offer. I'm sure the "Southerners" were remembering the ol' Reagan line, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ahhhh the the you “have too!, Need too!, must !” Do “X”. 
I am reminded what an E.R. Doctor told our family when we brought a family member in for a stroke. 
There was a bit of “cant you make them, or tell them to do “X or Y or Z”.

I will never forget, in a positive way, he said “I can only advise patients on what to do, I can’t force them or make them do anything.”

Kind of stuck with me, and it carried on. 
You can or really should do this, but I won’t force you, it’s your decision.

Case in point. Democrats would review that and scream “THERE NEEDS YO BE A  L A W! 🤯😱.”  Just like the person in the interview.

 

[Smallbore]

On 4/21/2023 at 9:34 PM, mab22 said:

Not sure I am following the progressive thought, the poor should expect to be left alone and poor, from their government?
I wish all .gov would leave us alone and let us be poor, rich, middle income, don’t want to be classified, broke a@@, or what ever financial status you wish to identify as. 

Gov staying out of our lives would greatly benefit all. Sadly over the decades too many believe the gov has done good. But has it.

I contend the Davis-Bacon act is responsible for running manufacturing job out of the US. Another result is high taxes to pay all the over paid government workers.

Has the government getting involved in civil rights abuses solved civil discord. Do all Americans have more freedom today? Nope

Are families stronger today? Nope

Are children better protected today? Not when our leadership support murdering a healthy baby up to a few hours after birth. Not when promoting chopping off a little boys dick is accepted by so many.

The greedy seeking free money from an all powerful government has destroyed us.

 

 

[mauserme]

I split this from the topic that was originally titled Rep. Caulkins Lawsuit Against the "Assault Weapons Ban" (Caulkins v Prizker), and is now known as the Caulkins v Pritzker Recusal Thread.  This will make it easier to follow the two, individual lines of thought.
 

 

 

 

[mab22]

( I think I’m in the correct thread for this.)

Since there is a Federal injunction in place, what will the IL SC court do with this case, sit on it until the federal one is over, then follow that decision or make something up they like?
 

Edited April 30, 2023 at 02:09 PM by mab22

[powderhead]

That's a good question.  I'm waiting for an answer too.

[Upholder]

Personally, I fully expect the IL Supreme Court to do what they were going to do without considering the federal cases at all.

 

The case before them, while about the same law, is not there because of the 2nd amendment to the federal constitution, nor the IL Constitution's clause protecting the right to keep and bear arms.  It is there entirely on the equal protection and three readings arguments.

 

The hearing is scheduled for the middle of May.  They'll hold that hearing.  They'll likely take a few weeks and then rule as Jabba put them there to do (I predict 5-2).  And it will likely be appealed to SCOTUS based on the appearance of bias, if not actual bias, relying on the precedent of the corruption case from West Virginia.  That's when the popcorn really needs to be ready because I think that could go any number of ways.

 

[mauserme]

On 4/30/2023 at 9:07 AM, mab22 said:

( I think I’m in the correct thread for this.)

Since there is a Federal injunction in place, what will the IL SC court do with this case, sit on it until the federal one is over, then follow that decision or make something up they like?
 

 

They have to be weighing the fact that even if they uphold the law the federal courts are unlikely to uphold it, at least not in it's entirety.  Nor is SCOTUS likely to uphold it, if they were even to grant cert. 

 

Sitting on it to avoid a decision is possible.  Ruling correctly is a possibility.  I don't think rubber stamping it is on the table for them, not under the current circumstances.

 

 

 

 

[davel501]

On 4/30/2023 at 11:11 AM, mauserme said:

 

They have to be weighing the fact that even if they uphold the law the federal courts are unlikely to uphold it, at least not in it's entirety.  Nor is SCOTUS likely to uphold it, if they were even to grant cert. 

 

Sitting on it to avoid a decision is possible.  Ruling correctly is a possibility.  I don't think rubber stamping it is on the table for them, not under the current circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a path to appeal if they never make a decision? 

[mauserme]

On 4/30/2023 at 11:47 AM, davel501 said:

 

Is there a path to appeal if they never make a decision? 

 

A non-decision would have to be something like a finding of mootness based on the federal injunction(s).  So appeals would be through the federal courts first, and then possibly back to the Illinois Supreme Court if they can get a favorable ruling from the 7th Circuit, for example.

 

 

[davel501]

On 4/30/2023 at 12:03 PM, mauserme said:

 

A non-decision would have to be something like a finding of mootness based on the federal injunction(s).  So appeals would be through the federal courts first, and then possibly back to the Illinois Supreme Court if they can get a favorable ruling from the 7th Circuit, for example.

 

 

 

What if they go ahead with the hearing but just never get around to issuing a ruling? 

[mauserme]

On 4/30/2023 at 12:45 PM, davel501 said:

 

What if they go ahead with the hearing but just never get around to issuing a ruling? 

 

I don't think they can do that.

[Euler]

On 4/30/2023 at 1:45 PM, davel501 said:

What if they go ahead with the hearing but just never get around to issuing a ruling? 

 

On 4/30/2023 at 1:51 PM, mauserme said:

I don't think they can do that.

 

It would be irony if they fail to follow procedure on a case whose basis is a failure to follow procedure.

[DaveIL]

On 4/30/2023 at 2:28 PM, Euler said:

 

 

It would be irony if they fail to follow procedure on a case whose basis is a failure to follow procedure.

That could also be called Planned Coincidence, if such an even did occur.

[mab22]

On 4/30/2023 at 2:28 PM, Euler said:

 

 

It would be irony if they fail to follow procedure on a case whose basis is a failure to follow procedure.

😁 Welcome to the failed state of Illinois.

I bet those 2 judges are now like, pheeew the heat is off for a bit!

[gunuser17]

If they can't come to a decision - say they are gridlocked on votes or so many recuse and the rest are deadlocked, then the appeal is dismissed and the lower court opinion stands.

 

[Plinkermostly]

On 4/30/2023 at 2:28 PM, Euler said:

 

 

It would be irony if they fail to follow procedure on a case whose basis is a failure to follow procedure.

 

well said

[Molly B.]

IL Supreme Court -  Caulkins v Pritzker - Rep. Dan Caulkins  - gun/mag ban challenge.  Oral argument will be scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 2023 - 9:00 A: - Livestream link: https://livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/10839019

[John Q Public]

This is the procedural one?

[Upholder]

Correct.  This hearing is the Oral Arguments related to the Equal Protections issue.

[Molly B.]

Court is beginning - Caulkins is not the first case to be heard.

[Molly B.]

Caulkins v Pritzker is now up for oral arguments.

[Evil Porkchop]

I fear that the court's decision is already made, no matter the oral arguments.

[starwatcher]

These judges are having fun playing dumb.

[starwatcher]

Apparently this isn't a 2nd amendment case. According to this judge.

[Upholder]

During the appellee's time, the court states that they do not read Heller to protect the commercial sale of guns.

The court read and is misreading:
 

Quote

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

A ban is not a condition or qualification.  The next sentence that they never read says that weapons in common use at the time are protected.

 

The court asks about the special classes exempt and states that they are acceptable because of the "training" required.   Council points out that equally or better trained military are not included, and that grandfathered are, in theory, trained to the same level as those not grandfathered.

 

[mab22]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:07 AM, starwatcher said:

Apparently this isn't a 2nd amendment case. According to this judge.

I could be wrong, but I thought Devore never meant it to be a 2A case. It sounds like Caulkins made it a 2A based on Bruen, then if you make it past the Bruen, then the equal protection needs to be analyzed?
 

[G214me]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:05 AM, starwatcher said:

These judges are having fun playing dumb.

Bingo !!! Couldn't be more obvious. They seem to be trying to make it look like the case is so confusing that they have no idea what the plaintiffs are asking for no matter how many different ways it's being explained to them.

[Odinson]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't seem like that went very well for us.

 

[cbunt32]

I missed everything but the first and last couple minutes. How'd it go overall?