AW: Wilson v. Cook County

[hoffmang]

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/wil...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/wil...2010-12-01.pdf

This is Cook Counties supplemental brief: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wil...2010-12-08.pdf

Wilson loses.

Wilson appeals to IL Supremes: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/wil...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/wil...2011-03-10.pdf

Wilson's petition was granted about two weeks ago!

-Gene

[Vipersx911]

Looking forward to how the case progresses, yet another waiting game. Thanks for supplying my night time reading.

[Librarian]

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]

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]

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.

Erik.

[Falconis]

What are the chances with the Illinois Supreme Court? Is this a case that's headed to SCOTUS?

[Anchors]

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]

I've got some reading to do but this sounds very interesting.

[Wernher von Browning]

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]

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]

Semiautomatic firearms are the kind of arms in common use at this time - therefor they can't be banned.

-Gene

[Anchors]

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]

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]

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]

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.