Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[Upholder]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:23 AM, Odinson said:

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

 

It never was.  It's a stacked deck.

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:23 AM, Odinson said:

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

 

I agree, they don't want it about the 2A because they would have to defend a decision against this. 

[steveTA84]

Well, let’s see if Stocks appeals this stacked deck case to SCOTUS on the grounds of Caperton V Massey once they rule that cops and locksmiths have more rights than anyone else 

[G214me]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:23 AM, Odinson said:

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

 

You're correct. The judges act confused and pretend they just can't understand what our side wants even though it's being explained over and over again. The lawyer the state had seemed pretty unprepared and basically sucked. I'm sure suitcases full of cash toward a couple so called judges won't help either.

[THE KING]

Thanks for the recap on what transpired in the oral arguments.

 

But did anyone SERIOUSLY think that this was going to go any different for us. Those judges are bought and paid for and will do everything they can to either kick the can down the road or rule against the 2nd amendment.

 

I like everyone else here likes to be optimistic but I'm a realist and understand how the deck is stacked against us. It's going to take SCOTUS to slap down the inferior courts before we see any relief. Just my opinion. 

 

KING

[TargetCollector]

Do we even really want this one to win, though?  If it gets tossed on these procedural arguments, they'll just rewrite the thing with a couple of patches to invalidate future arguments and make it harder to fight on 2A grounds, no?

[G214me]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:45 AM, TargetCollector said:

Do we even really want this one to win, though?  If it gets tossed on these procedural arguments, they'll just rewrite the thing with a couple of patches to invalidate future arguments and make it harder to fight on 2A grounds, no?

The state won't let it go. They may get rid of the special privileges for some but they will want the rest of it to stay and that's where the federal court and maybe SCOTUS will knock it down.

[G214me]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:29 AM, steveTA84 said:

Well, let’s see if Stocks appeals this stacked deck case to SCOTUS on the grounds of Caperton V Massey once they rule that cops and locksmiths have more rights than anyone else 

These so called oral arguments we saw today reminds me of the hearings scene from the movie Animal House. And we're Delta.

[wdnshoots]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:45 AM, TargetCollector said:

Do we even really want this one to win, though?  If it gets tossed on these procedural arguments, they'll just rewrite the thing with a couple of patches to invalidate future arguments and make it harder to fight on 2A grounds, no?

Yes, we do want this to win. It will make it harder for the state to pass laws by skipping the procedure set forth by the Illinois Constitution. That's why they were able to pass the ban so easily in the first place.

[yurimodin]

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

These judges are having fun playing dumb.

Oath breaker is gonna oath break.....

[steveTA84]

On thing I caught is the chief Justice admitting that Bruen gets rid of interest balancing and intermediate scrutiny 

[Upholder]

 

[yurimodin]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:07 PM, Upholder said:

 

"You play a different role(peasant)"

[ddan]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:20 PM, yurimodin said:

"You play a different role(peasant)"

This goes to the heart of the State's problem arguing the equal protection violations: It's not just on-duty, but rather the exemption includes retired LEOs.  Retired LEO is in the same "role" as I am, Kwamie.  

[steveTA84]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:07 PM, Upholder said:

 

Of course he is lol 

[yurimodin]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:36 PM, steveTA84 said:

Of course he is lol 

Like I said "Oath breakers are gonna oath break"

[steveTA84]

 

[davel501]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:28 PM, ddan said:

This goes to the heart of the State's problem arguing the equal protection violations: It's not just on-duty, but rather the exemption includes retired LEOs.  Retired LEO is in the same "role" as I am, Kwamie.  

 

You are either subject to the UCMJ or you're a civilian. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

Liberal justices both fundamentally don't understand or accept the 2A being an individual right.  They think guns are different than every other right.  

 

So the plaintiff attorney during his press conference ask the question what if the case was about equal protection and voting rights - they understand that.   But 2A and EP aren't the same because guns are icky and bad and a separate right outside of the normal bill of rights.    

 

That is how they all think.  

 

 

[Jeffrey]

On 5/16/2023 at 2:51 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Liberal justices both fundamentally don't understand or accept the 2A being an individual right.  They think guns are different than every other right.  

 

So the plaintiff attorney during his press conference ask the question what if the case was about equal protection and voting rights - they understand that.   But 2A and EP aren't the same because guns are icky and bad and a separate right outside of the normal bill of rights.    

 

That is how they all think.  

 

 

Judgements based on emotion ignoring facts shouldn't be enforceable.  

[steveTA84]

Stocks in his interview hinted that an appeal on the Caperton clause is in play depending on ruling 

[Upholder]

Illinois justices hear 2nd Amendment, equal protections arguments against state’s gun ban

[Molly B.]

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-audio-and-video/#videoModal

 

Link to video of oral arguments.

[JTHunter]

With the "judgement" of these corrupt judges an almost forgone conclusion, does this not make the likelihood of it being brought to the USSC much greater?

[steveTA84]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:06 PM, JTHunter said:

With the "judgement" of these corrupt judges an almost forgone conclusion, does this not make the likelihood of it being brought to the USSC much greater?

Yes, and they’re even breaking their own rules lol. Nice MDA branded cookie there, judge! Notice above the highlighted parts that the canons pertain to candidates as well, not just seated justices 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 at 03:22 AM by steveTA84

[steveTA84]

BTW before Caperton V Massey John Grisham wrote a book on the situation in the ILSC lol 

 

[mab22]

On 5/16/2023 at 10:06 PM, JTHunter said:

With the "judgement" of these corrupt judges an almost forgone conclusion, does this not make the likelihood of it being brought to the USSC much greater?

Only if Caulkins, has the right case, decides to take it to the SCOTUS, has the funds, AND someone to argue it.
Then…. Sure.
 

[steveTA84]

On 5/16/2023 at 11:02 PM, mab22 said:

Only if Caulkins, has the right case, decides to take it to the SCOTUS, has the funds, AND someone to argue it.
Then…. Sure.
 

If the ruling is 4-3, and only one or neither end up recusing, easy appeal to SCOTUS. 3-3 (if one recuses), we win. If 5-2, it could be argued that ruling even without them wouldn’t have changed anything. Either way, state is corrupt 

[steveTA84]

Ruling coming out at 9am tomorrow. Let’s hope Stocks and Caulkins are ready to appeal this to the federal courts on grounds of Caperton V Massey

[Evil Porkchop]

On 8/10/2023 at 11:37 AM, steveTA84 said:

Ruling coming out at 9am tomorrow. Let’s hope Stocks and Caulkins are ready to appeal this to the federal courts on grounds of Caperton V Massey

I'm hoping the ILSC actually does the right thing and strikes the law down... But I have little faith that will happen.