The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 8, 2010, 08:26 PM   #1
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,316
Illinois - Under the RADAR

Here's a case, by the NRA and ISRA, that started sometime in 2008 (before Heller), I believe. The case is a challenge to the Illinois Cook County (i.e. Chicago) Assault Weapons Ban.

On Sept. 29, 2010 the following order was issued by the Illinois Supreme Court:
Quote:
No. 109314 - Matthew D. Wilson et al., petitioners, v. Cook County, etc., et al., respondents. Leave to appeal, Appellate Court, First District. (1-08-1202)
Petition for leave to appeal denied.

In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its order in Wilson v. Cook County, case No. 1-08-1202 (08/19/09), and reconsider the matter in light of McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (06/28/10), to determine if another result is warranted.
The above can be found at the top of PDF page 4 here.

Next is the orders of the GVR'd case for the Illinois 1st Circuit Appellate Court, as reported by The Sacramento Bee [CA] in an ISRA PR release, here.
Quote:
In a move that surprised all parties to the litigation, the First District Appellate Court ordered both plaintiffs and defendants to file simultaneous briefs in 15 days, with no Reply briefing allowed. The Appellate court's Order came within days of the Supreme Court's issued mandate, which directs the Appellate Court to vacate and reconsider.
Then over at Scribd, someone uploaded the ISRA supplemental brief to the Appeals Court. You can download or read it, here.

There are 4 points that the brief makes:
  1. Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review given that the right is fundamental and that Heller and McDonald reject reliance on legislative findings.
  2. McDonald recognizes the Second Amendment fundamental right applies equally to the federal Bill of Rights provisions as do other Bill of Rights provisions.
  3. The Second Amendment’s central component of the fundamental right of self-defense precludes McDonald’s holding of that right purportedly applying only to handguns.
  4. McDonald’s holding that the same standards apply to the states as apply to the United States requires application of the test of whether a type of firearms is commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
I would note that the brief asks the court to vacate and remand to the district court.

Further note that while this is an ISRA case, Stephan Halbrook (NRA) is counsel of record.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.

Last edited by Al Norris; December 11, 2010 at 05:58 PM. Reason: Correcting my mistake
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 11, 2010, 12:43 PM   #2
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 697
Quote:
The case is a challenge to the Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Illinoize does not (yet) have an AWB-Cook County does, however.


Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is online now  
Old December 11, 2010, 05:57 PM   #3
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,316
You're right. My bad in saying it's an Illinois law. It's not. OP edited.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 12, 2010, 12:19 AM   #4
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 697
Probably should have left it, Al; Rahm has plans....




Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is online now  
Old April 6, 2012, 12:06 AM   #5
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the challenge to the Cook County assault weapons ban may proceed, reversing a lower court decision.

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.co...led_4-5-12.doc


Quote:
Filed in 2007, the suit was thrown out by the circuit court at the county's request. After the plaintiffs' appeal to the appellate court, the suit was again dismissed. Now, though, the state Supreme Court has ruled that a Second Amendment challenge to bans of so-called "assault weapons" has enough merit to require a trial.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ban-to-proceed

I gotta hand it to those guys for sticking in there... 2007 case, dismissed multiple times, they keep filing appeals... they're like zombies!



.

Last edited by C0untZer0; April 6, 2012 at 12:17 AM.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07384 seconds with 9 queries