PDA

View Full Version : AW: Wilson v. Cook County


hoffmang
06-12-2011, 11:39 PM
All,

I mentioned this case the other day here and on twitter, but Wilson v. Cook County is about to be heard by the Illinois Supreme Court in Illinois state court.

We in California should care because the Cook County ordinance is a direct descendant of the California AWCA including an even more vague "SB-23" style restriction.

A little background. Wilson lost at district and the court of appeals. His appeals loss was right before McDonald was decided. The Illinois Supremes vacated the appeals decision and remanded asking the court whether McDonald commanded a different result. Somewhat predictably, the IL court of appeals turned in the same decision again (fundamental schmundamental...)

Now, the IL Supremes have granted an appeal in the case.

Here are the filings:

This is the brief by Wilson ordered after the IL Supremes returned the case to the court of appeals: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wilson-v-cook_county/Supplemental_Brief_of_Plantiffs-Appellants-2010-12-01.pdf

The appendix includes the lower court, and court of appeal decisions. It also includes the ordinance itself and the vacation by the Supremes: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wilson-v-cook_county/Separate_Appendix_to_Supplemental_Brief_of_Plantif fs-Appellants-2010-12-01.pdf

This is Cook Counties supplemental brief: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wilson-v-cook_county/Corrected_Defendants_Supplemental_Brief_of_Defenda nts-2010-12-08.pdf

Wilson loses.

Wilson appeals to IL Supremes: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wilson-v-cook_county/Petition_for_Leave_to_Appeal-2011-03-10.pdf

The appendix includes the newly updated court of appeals decision and much of the rest of the record: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wilson-v-cook_county/Separate_Appendix_to_Leave_for_Appeal-2011-03-10.pdf

Wilson's petition was granted about two weeks ago!

-Gene

Vipersx911
06-12-2011, 11:42 PM
Looking forward to how the case progresses, yet another waiting game. Thanks for supplying my night time reading.

Librarian
06-12-2011, 11:54 PM
It's nice to see Stephen Halbrook working in the Heller/Mcdonald era - prior efforts were very well argued and often ineffective on grounds of claimed lack of standing or similar.

hoffmang
06-12-2011, 11:56 PM
I forgot to mention how small the world is. Lead counsel to Wilson et al is Victor Quilici of Quilici v. Morton Grove...

-Gene

Window_Seat
06-13-2011, 12:18 AM
Been reading up on it. Very interesting reading, but lots to digest for sure. When asked what I like to read... I say "Briefs". They look at me really funny. :laugh:

Erik.

Falconis
06-13-2011, 12:59 AM
What are the chances with the Illinois Supreme Court? Is this a case that's headed to SCOTUS?

Anchors
06-13-2011, 3:36 AM
What are the chances with the Illinois Supreme Court? Is this a case that's headed to SCOTUS?

I'm going to go out on a limb without knowing more about it and say probably not headed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS doesn't have to take cases they don't want and an AW ban case is probably below their radar right now (or it seems that way to me).
I could be wrong though. I would love to be wrong actually!

wash
06-13-2011, 10:05 AM
I've got some reading to do but this sounds very interesting.

Wernher von Browning
06-13-2011, 12:58 PM
Did some digging on that case, to find out what's behind it. Still looking, but I thought this was hilarious.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/12/isra-on-cook-countys-brief-in-wilson-v.html

But then, I spent most of my childhood in Chicaga, nothing that the Machine does surprises me.

ddestruel
06-13-2011, 1:36 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb without knowing more about it and say probably not headed to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS doesn't have to take cases they don't want and an AW ban case is probably below their radar right now (or it seems that way to me).
I could be wrong though. I would love to be wrong actually!

The AW ban cases are interesting because it raises a valid question how far can states go in restricting guns? CA could potentially ban all semi-automatic weapons, require single shot conversions to existing pistols or a tool for removing a clip from an existing semi automatic pistol. claiming in some way that semi-automatic firearms all need to be more restricted in thier state because the state has a public safety interest/concern regarding these makes and models. I wonder if SCOTUS sees that writing ont he wall and knows a case will eventually be coming their way. I would think that MILLER would be impacting or guiding this more

hoffmang
06-13-2011, 4:58 PM
Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor they can't be banned.

-Gene

Anchors
06-13-2011, 8:29 PM
Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor they can't be banned.

-Gene

Yeah, I am not worried about that at all.
Then again, we can't become complacent and begin to expect anything but the worst from California.
But realistically, we're good on semis (as long as they aren't also rifles with various cosmetic plastic attachments and a detachable magazine).

Southwest Chuck
06-14-2011, 10:04 AM
All,

I mentioned this case the other day here and on twitter, but Wilson v. Cook County is about to be heard by the Illinois Supreme Court in Illinois state court.

-Gene

Has the date of the orals been announced and if so, will a recording be available on the net?

dantodd
06-14-2011, 10:20 AM
Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor they can't be banned.

-Gene

I don't doubt that the courts will find that pistol gripped semi-automatic rifles are in the same class as semi-automatic rifles without a pistol grip. The problem then becomes the claim that if "Illinois defined AWs" are no different than non-AW semi-auto rifles then they are not banning a class of weapon, only limiting your choice within that class. I don't know the politics of Ill state courts but in CA or the 9th circuit I can certainly see this as being important and the courts choosing to decide that since a wide array of other weapons in the class are available the "AW ban" doesn't put an undue burden on the exercise of 2A.

In California right now we might actually be better off to claim that firearms defined by CA law ARE a different class of weapon from other semi-auto rifles because then it really would be banning a class of weapon in common use.

Of course, if we win Pena and get a ruling that says you cannot arbitrarily restrict certain weapons in a class the battlefield changes.

navyinrwanda
06-14-2011, 3:54 PM
I don't doubt that the courts will find that pistol gripped semi-automatic rifles are in the same class as semi-automatic rifles without a pistol grip. The problem then becomes the claim that if "Illinois defined AWs" are no different than non-AW semi-auto rifles then they are not banning a class of weapon, only limiting your choice within that class. I don't know the politics of Ill state courts but in CA or the 9th circuit I can certainly see this as being important and the courts choosing to decide that since a wide array of other weapons in the class are available the "AW ban" doesn't put an undue burden on the exercise of 2A.

Indeed. It will take more than an assertion that "Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor they can't be banned" to overturn either Illinois' or California's assault weapons statutes.

Fortunately, this action in Illinois makes other arguments. Both state's bans are more suceptible to attack as vague and/or irrational laws. Of course, such attacks can only be accomplished by presenting evidence (and overcoming any presumptions about legislative findings).

Whether or not vagueness can be established by the actions of a state's chief legal officer (in the absence of a facial showing) is also questionable.

Maestro Pistolero
06-14-2011, 4:44 PM
Originally Posted by dantodd
I don't doubt that the courts will find that pistol gripped semi-automatic rifles are in the same class as semi-automatic rifles without a pistol grip. The problem then becomes the claim that if "Illinois defined AWs" are no different than non-AW semi-auto rifles then they are not banning a class of weapon, only limiting your choice within that class. I don't know the politics of Ill state courts but in CA or the 9th circuit I can certainly see this as being important and the courts choosing to decide that since a wide array of other weapons in the class are available the "AW ban" doesn't put an undue burden on the exercise of 2A.If keeping and bearing a protected arm is covered by any elevated scrutiny, then certainly it must clear the hurdle of lower scrutiny, i.e. rational basis.

That means it has to be rational. A pistol grip equipped weapon, such as an AR15, being in wide common use for a variety of sporting and military (read militia) uses, ought to be a the most protected weapon in the land, as it is by design, a civilian version of the military weapon, i.e. M16/M4. What could be more perfect as a multi-purpose weapon for a multi-purpose amendment?

This fits perfectly with the notion, as resurrected in Heller, that militia members come bearing the types of arms in common use. We later argue that semi-auto AK47s, being nearly identical in terms to performance characteristics, and any other similarly performing weapon would rationally deserve the same protection.

Just as 'in the home' does not define the perimeter of the right, neither does self-defense. And just because the amendment is now codified as being not necessarily related to the militia purpose stated in the first clause, the Heller ruling in no way means that the SCOTUS has pronounced the the militia clause to be extinct.

The neccessity of a militia is, after all, the only core purpose specifically mentioned in the amendment.

Whatever other purposes are deemed to come under the umbrella of the second amendment, the militia purpose, or shall we say the necessity of the ability to raise an armed militia, has not yet been written out of the constitution.

I say all that to say this: I don't think we have heard the last word on the first clause, especially as it relates to what type of weapons fall under 2A protection.

curtisfong
06-14-2011, 4:46 PM
"Arms" in common use can't be banned? No problem. Define "arms" as "weapons that aren't banned" (see also Heller "lawful purposes").

Let Kevin DeLeon do the rest. Sigh.

taperxz
06-14-2011, 4:47 PM
I don't doubt that the courts will find that pistol gripped semi-automatic rifles are in the same class as semi-automatic rifles without a pistol grip. The problem then becomes the claim that if "Illinois defined AWs" are no different than non-AW semi-auto rifles then they are not banning a class of weapon, only limiting your choice within that class. I don't know the politics of Ill state courts but in CA or the 9th circuit I can certainly see this as being important and the courts choosing to decide that since a wide array of other weapons in the class are available the "AW ban" doesn't put an undue burden on the exercise of 2A.

In California right now we might actually be better off to claim that firearms defined by CA law ARE a different class of weapon from other semi-auto rifles because then it really would be banning a class of weapon in common use.

Of course, if we win Pena and get a ruling that says you cannot arbitrarily restrict certain weapons in a class the battlefield changes.


Just because a rifle is not in common use in CA BECAUSE of the CA AWB does not mean they are not in common use in the rest of the country, which they are.;)

Crom
06-14-2011, 4:49 PM
This is turning out to be a very busy year for 2A litigation. This will be an interesting case to watch. :)

sreiter
06-14-2011, 5:53 PM
The AW ban cases are interesting because it raises a valid question how far can states go in restricting guns? CA could potentially ban all semi-automatic weapons, require single shot conversions to existing pistols or a tool for removing a clip from an existing semi automatic pistol. claiming in some way that semi-automatic firearms all need to be more restricted in thier state because the state has a public safety interest/concern regarding these makes and models. I wonder if SCOTUS sees that writing ont he wall and knows a case will eventually be coming their way. I would think that MILLER would be impacting or guiding this more

I would think something more along the lines of "all area's with a population of > 100 is a sensitive area" BS, being tried, as Scalia specifically mentioned can ban in sensitive places

sreiter
06-14-2011, 5:59 PM
If keeping and bearing a protected arm is covered by any elevated scrutiny, then certainly it must clear the hurdle of lower scrutiny, i.e. rational basis.

That means it has to be rational. A pistol grip equipped weapon, such as an AR15, being in wide common use for a variety of sporting and military (read militia) uses, ought to be a the most protected weapon in the land, as it is by design, a civilian version of the military weapon, i.e. M16/M4. What could be more perfect as a multi-purpose weapon for a multi-purpose amendment?

This fits perfectly with the notion, as resurrected in Heller, that militia members come bearing the types of arms in common use. We later argue that semi-auto AK47s, being nearly identical in terms to performance characteristics, and any other similarly performing weapon would rationally deserve the same protection.

Just as 'in the home' does not define the perimeter of the right, neither does self-defense. And just because the amendment is now codified as being not necessarily related to the militia purpose stated in the first clause, the Heller ruling in no way means that the SCOTUS has pronounced the the militia clause to be extinct.

The neccessity of a militia is, after all, the only core purpose specifically mentioned in the amendment.

Whatever other purposes are deemed to come under the umbrella of the second amendment, the militia purpose, or shall we say the necessity of the ability to raise an armed militia, has not yet been written out of the constitution.

I say all that to say this: I don't think we have heard the last word on the first clause, especially as it relates to what type of weapons fall under 2A protection.

This makes me mental!!! The logic is flawless. Why the hell can't seemingly educated people (judges, legislators, governors) understand this is beyond me. It's like "truth be damn, I'm gonna F'k you because I can"

Dreaded Claymore
06-14-2011, 6:26 PM
I am reading the County's supplemental brief. The whole argument seems extremely lazy. In one part they use the TEC-DC9 as an example of an unusual and highly dangerous weapon, and then they seem to expect that we will take their word that all "assault weapons" are similar to it.

hoffmang
06-14-2011, 9:19 PM
Just because a rifle is not in common use in CA BECAUSE of the CA AWB does not mean they are not in common use in the rest of the country, which they are.;)

Handguns were exceedingly uncommon in D.C. Commonness isn't about the area where the arm is banned. It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider common.

There is tons of evidence - much provided by the other side - that ARs/AKs etc are very common.

The classed of weapons re semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic shotguns. Each are very common as even where "AWs" are banned, there remain many of each still available. It's hard to ban the M1 or the M1 Carbine...

-Gene

dantodd
06-14-2011, 9:32 PM
Just because a rifle is not in common use in CA BECAUSE of the CA AWB does not mean they are not in common use in the rest of the country, which they are.;)

Not only that but they are also in common use in CA. Even if CA defends AR/AKs as a different class of weapon than other semi-auto rifles it won't be able to say they are different than featureless builds of the same ATF-defined firearm or a bullet buttoned one.

ddestruel
06-14-2011, 10:38 PM
Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor they can't be banned.

-Gene

The AR-15 in no special configuration is in common use too outside of this state yet they continue down the path, whats to stop them from passing legislation restricting the capicity of clips to less tahn 10 rounds, whats there to prevent one of these guys from passing a bill in the CA legislature taht says nothing over 5 or 6 rounds making a semiautomatic equal to that of a revolver in capacity I hop e that as these AW challenges worm their way through they begin to address these loose ends.

I have faith in our team it the antis that never cease to amaze me with their creative and infuriating ways to try and recapture what little control they are rapidly loosing through ill conceived and hopefully costly legislation

hoffmang
06-14-2011, 11:04 PM
The AR-15 in no special configuration is in common use too outside of this state yet they continue down the path, whats to stop them from passing legislation restricting the capicity of clips to less tahn 10 rounds, whats there to prevent one of these guys from passing a bill in the CA legislature taht says nothing over 5 or 6 rounds making a semiautomatic equal to that of a revolver in capacity I hop e that as these AW challenges worm their way through they begin to address these loose ends.

Oh... we have a little poison pill for the antis to swallow all too soon on magazines....

-Gene

Peter.Steele
06-14-2011, 11:18 PM
Oh... we have a little poison pill for the antis to swallow all too soon on magazines....

-Gene



Dammit Gene, get moving on this! I need some M&P 15-22 magazines! And some more 92FS high-caps!

hoffmang
06-14-2011, 11:23 PM
Dammit Gene, get moving on this! I need some M&P 15-22 magazines! And some more 92FS high-caps!

But what about all those you bought in 1999! ;)

-Gene

johndoe2150
06-14-2011, 11:44 PM
Not all of us were old enough to buy magazines back in 1999...In looking forward to the next two years in this state

bwiese
06-14-2011, 11:49 PM
Not all of us were old enough to buy magazines back in 1999...In looking forward to the next two years in this state

There was no 18 or 21 yr old age restriction on buying mags before 2000.

However, if you were 4 yrs old it might smell funny.

Falconis
06-15-2011, 12:28 AM
There was no 18 or 21 yr old age restriction on buying mags before 2000.

However, if you were 4 yrs old it might smell funny.

My dad bought them for me knowing how bad this law sucked back then? I don't know. Just trying to come up with excuses.

ccmc
06-15-2011, 5:02 AM
The AR-15 in no special configuration is in common use too outside of this state yet they continue down the path, whats to stop them from passing legislation restricting the capicity of clips to less tahn 10 rounds, whats there to prevent one of these guys from passing a bill in the CA legislature taht says nothing over 5 or 6 rounds making a semiautomatic equal to that of a revolver in capacity

AFAIK if you hunt with magazine fed semi-auto rifles you're restricted to five round mags (I'm not a hunter so please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's one theoretical path in that direction.

boxcab
06-15-2011, 5:23 AM
Handguns were exceedingly uncommon in D.C. Commonness isn't about the area where the arm is banned. It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider common.

There is tons of evidence - much provided by the other side - that ARs/AKs etc are very common.

The classed of weapons re semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic shotguns. Each are very common as even where "AWs" are banned, there remain many of each still available. It's hard to ban the M1 or the M1 Carbine...

-Gene

Gene,

Thanks for your insights.

From the bolded above, what limits us to "in common use in the US"? Why not "in common use in the world"? What leads you to the US limitation?


-Boxcab

Patrick-2
06-15-2011, 5:23 AM
Just because a rifle is not in common use in CA BECAUSE of the CA AWB does not mean they are not in common use in the rest of the country, which they are.;)

Yes, let me +1 this comment for my California friends: There is a world outside California.

As Gene noted, Heller involved a city banning all handguns, yet the Supreme Court specifically protected them in Heller due to their "common use and the overwhelming preference" people have for them in self-defense situations.

Evil Black Rifles are exceptionally popular in the USA and quite common. California will not be able to hang its hat on this hook for long.

ccmc
06-15-2011, 5:27 AM
Yes, let me +1 this comment for my California friends: There is a world outside California.

As Gene noted, Heller involved a city banning all handguns, yet the Supreme Court specifically protected them in Heller due to their "common use and the overwhelming preference" people have for them in self-defense situations.

Evil Black Rifles are exceptionally popular in the USA and quite common. California will not be able to hang its hat on this hook for long.

Very true. At my local range 30 round EBRs are the majority of what you see on the rifle side.

ddestruel
06-15-2011, 8:57 AM
AFAIK if you hunt with magazine fed semi-auto rifles you're restricted to five round mags (I'm not a hunter so please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's one theoretical path in that direction.

Hopefully the attempt to divide firearms into the classification of hunting or otherwise will be made mute soon, it strikes me as a final gasping attempt by various entities to try and divide and conquer the 2nd ammendment debate again.

All can be used for anything.

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 9:02 AM
It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider commonI would expand that. What's protected is also what is in common use by anyone who might attack and invade us that should be the standard. Our small arms must be at least equal in performance characteristics to those that a foreign invading force would use today. Otherwise the amendment is useless for it's only stated purpose.

aklover_91
06-15-2011, 9:02 AM
Handguns were exceedingly uncommon in D.C. Commonness isn't about the area where the arm is banned. It's about what the majority of folks in the US consider common.

There is tons of evidence - much provided by the other side - that ARs/AKs etc are very common.

The classed of weapons re semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic shotguns. Each are very common as even where "AWs" are banned, there remain many of each still available. It's hard to ban the M1 or the M1 Carbine...

-Gene
Just out of curiosity, would we ever be able to challenge the in common use bit? Considering if it wasn't for artificial limiters put on by NFA and GCA '86, our 'in common use' would be M16's and not AR's.

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 9:33 AM
Just out of curiosity, would we ever be able to challenge the in common use bit? Considering if it wasn't for artificial limiters put on by NFA and GCA '86, our 'in common use' would be M16's and not AR's.

That's a tough case to make. Even before the registration was closed, NFA weapons weren't that common in the big picture. They would be more common today if the registration was open, to be sure.

NFA challenges are down the road. And I think in the end, there will need to be SOME path to acquiring F/A, even though they may be heavily regulated.

Heavily regulated and banned are two different animals. As far as F/A goes, I think the former may survive but not the latter. A case could be made that we have an effective ban, as F/A is unavailable to anyone but the wealthiest among us, because the supply has been cut off, driving the price out of reach. Of course, that was the intent.

Again, that fight is for another day.

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 9:37 AM
I would add that F/A small arms are in definitively common use worldwide, not just by military but individuals, militias, and paramilitary.

Their ubiquity on the world stage makes them protected, because they are exactly the small arms that would be used by any foreign invader.

The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to inferior arms to repel foreign-born tyranny.

aklover_91
06-15-2011, 9:42 AM
That's a tough case to make. Even before the registration was closed, NFA weapons weren't that common in the big picture. They would be more common today if the registration was open, to be sure.

NFA challenges are down the road. And I think in the end, there will need to be SOME path to acquiring F/A, even though they may be heavily regulated.

Heavily regulated and banned are two different animals. As far as F/A goes, I think the former may survive but not the latter. A case could be made that we have an effective ban, as F/A is unavailable to anyone but the wealthiest among us, because the supply has been cut off, driving the price out of reach. Of course, that was the intent.

Again, that fight is for another day.

That's kind of my point, though. If we had never had NFA or another kind of manufactured road block and small arms were allowed to develop and be purchased normally, no one would have bothered to make semi-automatic only versions of infantry rifles. We wouldn't have got the SP-1, we'd have got real M16's.

In my mind, it seems shaky ground to say it's OK to ban arms that aren't in common use, only because before that ruling they decided not to allow them to be in common use.

It strikes me as awfully similar to that bunk about how they can regulate something that isn't a part of interstate commerce because by not being a part of interstate commerce it's absence has an effect on interstate commerce.

Untamed1972
06-15-2011, 1:31 PM
I would expand that. What's protected is also what is in common use by anyone who might attack and invade us that should be the standard. Our small arms must be at least equal in performance characteristics to those that a foreign invading force would use today. Otherwise the amendment is useless for it's only stated purpose.


Or to those weapons in use by....oh lets say a "tyranical gov't" perhaps :eek:

wash
06-15-2011, 2:05 PM
When I was young, they wouldn't let me in to gun shows alone so I bought all of my magazines in the parking lot.

Maestro Pistolero
06-15-2011, 2:08 PM
Or to those weapons in use by....oh lets say a "tyranical gov't" perhaps :eek:

But those evil foreigners being painted as the culprits is a much more palatable argument to make. Because our own government would never really become tyrannical right? :rolleyes: Of course, it's dissuading tyrants, whether foreign or domestic that lies at the core purpose of anti-tyranny.

But it's good to look at what threats our 2A weapons are there to oppose, so we can know what weapons the amendment protects. A global view broadens the scope a bit.

Purple K
07-25-2011, 11:44 PM
There is no 5-round limit for hunting in California. That's an old wive's-tail. You can hunt with a 30-round magazine as long as you own it legally.

AFAIK if you hunt with magazine fed semi-auto rifles you're restricted to five round mags (I'm not a hunter so please correct me if I'm wrong), so that's one theoretical path in that direction.

dantodd
07-25-2011, 11:59 PM
What is the Illinois Supreme Court schedule? When can we expect to hear something about this?

GettoPhilosopher
07-26-2011, 12:45 AM
What is the Illinois Supreme Court schedule? When can we expect to hear something about this?

:twoweeks:?

I want to know when Gene will finally unleash his mighty package, and whether or not it's related to Pinky. 0_o

jar
07-28-2011, 10:21 AM
The Massachusetts group Comm2A filed an amicus brief in this case: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/wilson_v_cook_county_comm2a_amicus.pdf

From their release on it: The Comm2A brief focuses on the nature, purpose, and history of the features prohibited by the Cook County ordinance. Features banned by Cook County represent a logical evolution of improvements to modern firearms, all of which contribute affirmatively to the usability and safety of firearms protected by the Second Amendment. Bans such as the one in Cook County defy logic as they’re the only instance where a government deliberately seeks to restrict improvements designed to make a product safer and more useable. The Cook County ordinance effectively makes a lawful product more difficult to use and potentially more dangerous to the user.

Has the appellants' brief been filed yet?

Maestro Pistolero
07-28-2011, 10:35 AM
Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor(e) they can't be banned.

-Gene

My position exactly. And what type of firearms could be more appropriate and tailored to the purpose of the first clause of the amendment, than civilian, semi-automatic versions of the very type of small arm issued by the military to every 18 year-old kid capable of signing his/her name?

As long as we have a militia clause in the second amendment, it doesn't matter how dormant the militia is or how likely it is to be used. The type of arms it protects must be up to the task of it's only specifically stated purpose.

Semi-automatic M4/M16 pattern weapons must be the MOST protected weapon in the land, or the first clause of amendment is rendered meaningless. (or in Heller-speak, pronounced extinct.)

J.D.Allen
07-28-2011, 11:05 AM
:twoweeks:?
Two weeks? Really?
:ban:

I want to know when Gene will finally unleash his mighty package

Wow. Just wow.

yellowfin
07-28-2011, 11:20 AM
I want to know when Gene will finally unleash his mighty package,Look up the FedEx tracking number.

awall919
07-28-2011, 11:56 AM
Thanks for the updated info. I can always count on you Hoffmang and oaklander when it comes to this sort of info. Its unfortunate that this sort of media isnt in the news daily, not just on Cal-Guns. In fact Cal-guns just needs its own news channel.

Quser.619
07-28-2011, 12:46 PM
Yea poison pill! Cannot wait for further updates! Please keep up the good work

Bhobbs
07-28-2011, 12:55 PM
My position exactly. And what type of firearms could be more appropriate and tailored to the purpose of the first clause of the amendment, than civilian, semi-automatic versions of the very type of small arm issued by the military to every 18 year-old kid capable of signing his/her name?

As long as we have a militia clause in the second amendment, it doesn't matter how dormant the militia is or how likely it is to be used. The type of arms it protects must be up to the task of it's only specifically stated purpose.

Semi-automatic M4/M16 pattern weapons must be the MOST protected weapon in the land, or the first clause of amendment is rendered meaningless. (or in Heller-speak, pronounced extinct.)

I can think of one better suited for militia service. A fully automatic M16/M4 just like the military uses.

Bhobbs
07-28-2011, 12:55 PM
Two weeks? Really?
:ban:


:iagree:

Maestro Pistolero
07-28-2011, 12:59 PM
I can think of one better suited for militia service. A fully automatic M16/M4 just like the military uses.

Yes. But arguments against them can be made that lots of folks will agree with.

Right now, IMO, any rational argument against the semi-auto versions fails miserably in the light of the first clause of the amendment. So let's start there.

Down the road, once folks get theirs, we can deal with the 1986 law. Incrementalism will win the day, just like it did for our opponents for way too many years.

Bhobbs
07-28-2011, 1:11 PM
Yes. But arguments against them can be made that lots of folks will agree with.

Right now, IMO, any rational argument against the semi-auto versions fails miserably in the light of the first clause of the amendment. So let's start there.

Down the road, once folks get theirs, we can deal with the 1986 law. Incrementalism will win the day, just like it did for our opponents for way too many years.

I agree. I just said that because I believe the 2A fully supports owning full autos.

Goosebrown
07-28-2011, 1:12 PM
My attorney friend states that Supreme Courts don't accept appeals cases to tell the prosecutors that they did a "really great job!".. they must see something here that makes them think that it has to do with MacDonald. I hope that is the case.

mdimeo
07-28-2011, 1:18 PM
I don't doubt that the courts will find that pistol gripped semi-automatic rifles are in the same class as semi-automatic rifles without a pistol grip. The problem then becomes the claim that if "Illinois defined AWs" are no different than non-AW semi-auto rifles then they are not banning a class of weapon, only limiting your choice within that class.

The class of weapons being banned is what is described in the statute. The appropriate question to ask is whether the class of weapons banned in the statute is in common use.

Are semi-auto, centerfire, detachable mag, pistol gripped weapons in common use? Sure! That describes the most popular rifle sold in the last few years. Millions are in use by civilians for lawful purposes including self-defense. California and Illinois both ban them. Heller makes it pretty clear that they can't, and that's before any scrutiny analysis comes into the picture (and the bans can't even pass rational basis).

proclone1
07-28-2011, 1:34 PM
Oh... we have a little poison pill for the antis to swallow all too soon on magazines....

-Gene



I just swooned.

donation to CGF incoming!!

Liberty1
07-28-2011, 1:34 PM
FA .45 Thompson would be common too if they didn't require a tax payment the government won't collect on new manufacture.

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tata/

http://www.mikesmachineguns.com/

Maestro Pistolero
07-28-2011, 1:35 PM
Yep. And again, having secured the individual right separate from the militia clause, we STILL HAVE a militia clause.

What do weapons that are designed for the security of a free state look like?
(warning gigantic pics)

http://www.christopherjhoffman.com/images/DSCN0325.JPG
http://www.christopherjhoffman.com/images/DSCN0354.JPG

Spelunker
07-28-2011, 1:35 PM
Do they have the ability to put a bullet button on in Illinois and have an AR variant? If no, is it that SB-23 thing that stops them?

nicki
07-28-2011, 2:08 PM
I want the Illonis Supreme court to do the "right thing", but if they don't, I assume this could be appealed directly to the "SCOTUS"?

I think the "SCOTUS" will take a "COSMETIC RIFLE BAN" if a clean case gets to them and in doing so, they would accomplish several things.

1. They tell all the courts, fed and state that they are serious about the 2nd amendment.

2. It could nail all state AW and mag cap laws.

At this rate, we should have significant progress on gun rights within next 2 years.

Nicki

Untamed1972
07-28-2011, 2:14 PM
It's nice theyincluded the CMP reference as well. Hmmm.....even the Fed gov't sees the benefit in supplying citizens with semi-auto rifles to train and maintain markmanship proficiency for the benefit of acting in defense of the state.

Seems these states/counties are gonna have a hard time justifiying a compelling state interest in banning protected items.....especially since the vast majority of the rest of the states and the federal gov't seem to have no issues with them.

tonelar
07-28-2011, 2:59 PM
My attorney friend states that Supreme Courts don't accept appeals cases to tell the prosecutors that they did a "really great job!".. they must see something here that makes them think that it has to do with MacDonald. I hope that is the case.

I Agree, this could be very good for us.

I want the Illonis Supreme court to do the "right thing", but if they don't, I assume this could be appealed directly to the "SCOTUS"?
...

Nicki

^- THIS 100%