View Full Version : Wilson v. Cook County
12-26-2012, 5:15 PM
I wanted to post this in http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=525669...but it wouldn't let me.
Does anybody know where we are at on this? Did the circuit court take another shot at it already or we still waiting for something from them?
Mulay El Raisuli
12-27-2012, 7:08 AM
12-27-2012, 7:18 AM
When posting in an older thread, you have to check a box at the bottom of your reply. acknowledging that it's an old thread. If you preview your post, you have to check it again a second time, and then submit it. Try again and post it to that thread. That way all info regarding the case is compiled there.
12-27-2012, 9:05 AM
Still waiting AFAIK
12-27-2012, 9:16 AM
I have been if any AWB cases might bear any fruit soon. The AR15 certainly passes the common use test, and all other semi-auto have the same performance characteristics. Hmm.
I wonder if plaintiff cited Miller for the common use test and militia purpose test? It isn't mentioned anywhere. It would seem that a strong argument could be made that once Heller and McDonald came down, Miller now is the only precedent that stands for what "arms" includes.
Another one that I am surprised at is why no cite to Harrot v County of Kings? That is a persuasive authority that specifically addressed the vagueness of "duplicate" or "series" type bans.
It would be nice if one of the big manufacturers would step up for an as applied challenge. If Remington or Ruger went into court with the argument that they are a manufacturer of arms and would like to sell a particular model, say the Remington R15 or the Ruger SR-556, and they cannot based on the ordinance I think it would be a strong case. They could show how many thousands (tens of thousands?) of that model are sold everywhere else in the US, show their development and marketing to show how it is specifically designed to be suitable for hunting and self defense, and that would be that. (yes, i know this is an over-simplification, but that the general idea)
Hopefully someone will find a court with enough intellectual honesty to look at the facts rather than the "findings" of the legislature. AW used in over 20% of crime?? The "preferred choice" of drug dealers and criminals?? Considering that in 1991 long guns of any type accounted for less than 10% of guns used in crime, and that number is about the same now, it should be obvious to anyone looking honestly at the facts that the "findings" were political rather than factual.
12-27-2012, 11:45 AM
I wonder if plaintiff cited Miller for the common use test and militia purpose test? It isn't mentioned anywhere. It would seem that a strong argument could be made that once Heller and McDonald came down, Miller now is the only precedent that stands for what "arms" includes. See Heller's interpretation of Miller. It's essentially an "in common use" reading.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.