View Single Post
Old December 8, 2010, 08:26 PM   #1
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,627
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:
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.
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.

Last edited by Al Norris; December 11, 2010 at 05:58 PM. Reason: Correcting my mistake
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.04860 seconds with 8 queries