Judge STOPS AWB, Blueprint for Nationwide Victory?!

L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
47,677
Reaction score
131,306
Location
livingston county

Judge STOPS AWB, Blueprint for Nationwide Victory?!​

You asked for it: the deep dive breakdown of the preliminary injunction that has halted the Protect Illinois Communities Act, also known as the Illinois assault weapon ban. The law banned the sale, transfer, possession, and manufacture of numerous different types of firearms, magazines, and accessories. Are magazines protected by the 2nd amendment? Are accessories protected by the 2nd amendment? What about AR15s? What are the proper constitutional tests as outlined by the US Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen? What were the issues that the judge got into in this ruling? What legal topics, in English, were covered and used to decide this case?


Contents of this video: 0:00 - Intro 0:21 - Supreme Court case stops AWB 1:40 - PICA 3:20 - Standard for Injunction Relief (parts) 8:35 - The Bruen Court 10:00 - Illinois Argues 10:27 - Third Circuit recognized 11:04 - The Judge's Thoughts 12:41 - Illinois's Next Argument 14:09 - Final Thoughts 14:58 - Outro
 
John Stark

John Stark

.44 mag
Messages
940
Reaction score
2,747
Location
IAM
One of the important points brought out in the video was the fact that "in common use" is the standard, not "in common use for self defense." That lines up with the opinion here that knocked down the argument from the state that "large" capacity mags and semi-auto "assault weapons" were not in common use at the time of the Founding. This is the old "this technology didn't exist then, so we can ban it.

I have talked about this before, and the conjunction here betweem the standard "in common use" and the obvious fact that new technology is "protected" makes it plain:

"In common use" is a rubric that means "tried and trued, tested technology" that does not make a weapon "dangerous or unusual" (a left over from Miller that was addressed in Heller and basically upheld by it).

The difference between "in common use" and "in common use for self defense" that the judge ruled on here, correctly as far as I'm concerned, is a strong argument that Americans ought not be limited to "civilian arms," a distinction the fascists use to make sure the government has a monopoly on violence.

Whether this ruling will be a "blueprint for nationwide victory" is another question altogether, and really depends almost completely on SCOTUS smashing the lower courts and forcing them to uphold the precedents already that are already case law in Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen. These are now case LAW.

The Supremes need to do their jobs. This bullshit has percolated enough already, and there are plenty of splits and bad rulings from lower courts, and plenty enough tyrannical and bad 2A laws from traitor states, for the Court to smack them all down.
 
Vinson57

Vinson57

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
16,927
Reaction score
41,537
Location
Up in the hills somewhere
This from the above video and from the judges ruling shows I am not alone in saying states rights does not include infringing on the 2A as the 2A makes it supreme. These things came before the days or radio, internet, air travel and interstate travel when few could pay attention to what each state was doing. The state can ban gas stoves but they cannot ban guns.

1683230855737.png
 
M

Modean

.223 Rem
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
2,751
Location
Oswego County
Jsmegs77 said:
An extended family member of mine had one, before GCA came down and he panicked and got rid of it (would never mention how). He has since passed away, sadly. I often wonder if it’s in the walls of some old family home for future generations to discover.
Click to expand...
That’s probably exactly where the Thompson my grandfather sent my dad during WW2 is. My older siblings confirm it was around until ‘68 and then vanished. Knowing my dad, I know he didn’t turn it in.
 
Jsmegs77

Jsmegs77

.308 Win
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
5,913
Location
Susquehanna Co. PA
Modean said:
That’s probably exactly where the Thompson my grandfather sent my dad during WW2 is. My older siblings confirm it was around until ‘68 and then vanished. Knowing my dad, I know he didn’t turn it in.
Click to expand...
I’m about positive my relative didn’t turn his in either. He didn’t have anything good to say about politicians, regardless of party. He owned several fast boats and nobody will confirm but there is speculation that he moved things for people out on Long Island, who didn’t want their business attracting attention. Ergo, mail order tommy gun. If he didn’t hide it somewhere he likely cut it into pieces or melted it.
 
M

Modean

.223 Rem
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
2,751
Location
Oswego County
livingston said:

CRAZY! COURT REVERSES JUDGE! AWB back on in Illinois!!​


The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has REVERSED the Southern District judge of Illinois who issued a preliminary injunction to pause the Protect Illinois Communities Act from going into effect.
Click to expand...
Time for that emergency SCOTUS beat down.
 
John Stark

John Stark

.44 mag
Messages
940
Reaction score
2,747
Location
IAM
You know I had not put together the implications of the two whiplash rulings detailed here, and the move by Barrett to force the city of Napperville in Illinois to get their shit together PRONOTO and respond to a challenge to its semi-auto ban in just one week's time. Brain cramp I guess.

Barrett Gives Illinois City Until Monday to Respond to Challenge to ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

The whole reason this bullshit is ongoing is because the elites sitting on the bench have wasted 15 years to enforce their rulings and precedents since Heller...
nygunforum.com nygunforum.com

Neither had I thought this through clearly on the implications via the now existing case law (Heller, McDonald, Bruen)... especially McDonald, the 2010 follow up of Heller in which the Supremes "incorporated" the Second Amendment to the states.

As strong as Bruen was, I am now wondering, given the move by Barrett, if the sane judges on SCOTUS have had enough of the lower courts screwing around and not getting with the program; and maybe that the real smack down they've been wanting to make wasn't in NY with Bruen, but might be coming against Illinois and the 7th Circuit.

That would be a potent and very symbolic message.

I don't want to sound too hopeful here, as I have railed against the Supremes enough times for not getting their heads out of their collective asses to enforce their precedents (15 freaking years since Heller) as well as the bar they set when they made strict scrutiny the standard, so I'm not trying to jump the gun or put on rose colored glasses.

Still, there is an interesting confluence of events here. Illinois is terrible on the Second Amendment just as NY, Commiefornia, and that state full of Massholes. It would be fitting and ironic Justice to see semi-auto and mag bans go up in smoke in that Demscum stronghold, especially with all the states that have flaunted the "safe" storage portion of the McDonald decision that was directed squarely at Chicago.

While I am not holding my breath, I do have to remind myself frequently that Almighty God does work in mysterious ways.

Maybe the 7th Circuit just screwed up in a big way. It ought to be noted that before we got McDonald, the 7th Circuit was the court that was dealing with two cases (McDonald vs. Chicago and NRA vs, Chicago), which the 7th consolidated and then held up the lower court's (anti-2A) decision... Its almost like we're watching a rerun on TV from 2010 with this latest turn of events. Hmmmm....

I'm not saying the Supremes lined this up purposely (almost impossible to do), but maybe with Barret's order they are seeing an opportunity that I am just now picking up on, now that I've thought through the dynamics in play here.

If the Supremes take this opportunity to smack Illinois here, it would be two birds with one stone. The state would get the Second Amendment crammed right down their fascist throats, and at the same time the Supremes would reversing the 7th Circuit, and maybe even remanding the case back to the fools in the 7th Circuit to make them follow the controlling legal precedents. That would be an epic take down of two nasty, rotten political entities/factions (Fed/State) all in one sweet, sweet Second Amendment victory. It would (or could be) a spear point in the heart of that fat bastard Pritzger, who thinks Illinois is his own personal fiefdom (executive branch), into the heart of the retarded Illinois state representatives and senators (legislative), and into the hearts of both the Illinois courts and the retards in the 7th Circuit (judicial branch), all in one fell blow.

If the Supremes let this great opportunity pass to settle the hash of the states that are flaunting their rulings, particularly the hash of the assholes who run Illinois, they will prove once again how utterly feckless and useless the black robed branch of government really is.

Holy Hell, what an opportunity!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top