* AG Raoul obliquely mentioned this topic during his inaugural address and I fleshed it out a bit for subscribers last week. Suffice it to say, Raoul wants a similar law passed here. Press release…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul led a coalition of 18 attorneys general supporting a New York law to hold the firearms industry accountable. In an amicus brief, Raoul and the coalition argue that New York has the authority to protect residents and public safety.
New York enacted its statute to hold gun industry members accountable for the irresponsible sale and marketing of firearms when that conduct results in harm to the public. Under the law, public officials or private citizens can file a lawsuit against a gun industry member when they knowingly or recklessly endanger the safety or health of the public in New York state through the unlawful or unreasonable sale, manufacturing, importing, or marketing of firearms. Gun industry members can also be held liable when they fail to use reasonable controls and procedures to prevent firearms from being unlawfully used or sold in New York state.
“Attorneys general play a key role in protecting residents from unlawful industry practices,” Raoul said. “My office has used its consumer protection powers to hold the tobacco, opioid, and payday loan industries accountable. Our enforcement actions have significantly changed industry behavior to protect Illinois residents. The firearms industry is not exempt from that same accountability, and that is why I filed this brief in support of New York’s law.”
Several members of the firearms industry sued New York, arguing that the statute is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit. Raoul and the coalition are now asking the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s ruling, which found that the law is not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — a federal law that limits civil remedies against gun industry members for harms caused solely by the misconduct of individuals who use firearms. The court also found that the law did not run afoul of either the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Raoul and the coalition argue that New York’s statute is lawful and benefits the public. As the brief explains, empirical evidence suggests a direct link between the harmful effects of gun violence and the irresponsible actions of gun industry members, such as dealers failing to enact reasonable controls to prevent straw purchasing or manufacturers designing novel marketing schemes to target vulnerable youth. New York’s law serves the important purpose of deterring gun industry members from engaging in irresponsible practices that actively contribute to increasing gun violence and, where necessary, holds those who engage in such tactics accountable for their own actions.
The brief is the most recent step in Attorney General Raoul’s work to address gun violence throughout Illinois and across the nation. The Attorney General’s office created a state-of-the-art crime-gun tracing database for Illinois law enforcement called Crime Gun Connect. Raoul’s office also collaborates with local law enforcement to combat gun trafficking and has used the office’s jurisdiction to prosecute multi-county gun trafficking offenses. Additionally, the Attorney General’s office works with law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to increase awareness of Illinois’ red flag law and to address gaps in Illinois’ firearms licensing system. The office also continues to prosecute individuals who lie on FOID card applications.
The Attorney General’s office partners with the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) to try to avert violence by hosting trainings for law enforcement officers, educators, religious leaders and other community members that are designed to prevent targeted acts of violence.
Attorney General Raoul has persistently advocated at the federal and state levels to strengthen regulation of 3D-printed guns and ghost guns. Illinois law now prohibits ghost guns, but the office continues to fight in federal court to help defend a recent rule closing the federal loophole. Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s office also defends cases pending in courts across the state challenging Illinois regulations of firearms. Nationally, Attorney General Raoul successfully filed and resolved a lawsuit to get the federal firearm license of an unscrupulous arms manufacturer revoked.
In addition to supporting law enforcement, the Attorney General’s office supports victims service providers around Illinois that offer trauma-informed services for crime victims and their families. Raoul’s Crime Victims Services Division administers a host of programs and services to assist survivors of violent crime. More information is available on the Attorney General’s website.
Joining Raoul in the filing the brief, are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
The amicus brief is here.
…Adding… Meanwhile, I told subscribers about this today, so I’ll just share it here without comment…
*** UPDATE 1 *** The first lawsuit against the new assault weapons ban has been filed. Looks like they’re using the kitchen sink approach. Click here.
*** UPDATE 2 *** You knew it wouldn’t be long before Tom DeVore found a pigeon… er… client…
I am pleased to announce this moming we have filed our first lawsuit in Effingham County against Governor Pritzker, Senate President Don Harmon, Speaker of the House Christopher Welch and Attorney General Kwame Raul in regard to HB 5471, which law is an outright attack on the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners across the state unless one is so fortunate to be in the large group of persons who somehow are excepted out. The case is styled as Accuracy Firearms, LLC et al. v. Pritzker et al. which case number is 2023-MR-04. The people came together, and as result, citizens from 87 counties joined in this effort to defend their inalienable rights to bear arms and to further stand up against the tyrannical ways which their legislature and the Governor continue to pass legislation in violation of clear constitutional mandates.
No longer can the citizens sit idly by while bureaucrats destroy the very foundational fabric of our great Republic. It’s an honor of my lifetime to play a role in representing the People against tyranny. Whether it be with the Illinois Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, we will continue to seek redress at every available turn until such time as the foundational principles which make this country great are restored to the People.
The Court has graciously provided my clients with an emergency hearing at 11:00 A.M. tomorow in Effingham County wherein we are asking for a temporary restraining order to restore their constitutional right to bear arms while this matter proceeds through the Courts.
“Bureaucrats”? This is duly enacted legislation, Tom. Good to see he hasn’t lost his dramatic flair /s
*** UPDATE 3 *** ISRA…
“The ISRA leads the charge in opposing Illinois’ new gun legislation, which we believe to be unconstitutional. We will be filing a federal lawsuit imminently.”
Richard Pearson Executive Director
- Steve - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 10:29 am:
Hope springs eternal. These sorts of laws haven’t really held up because millions use their product safely and legally.
- very old soil - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 10:43 am:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-courts-alito-and-thomas-warn-new-gun-control-law-raises-serious-2a-questions/ar-AA16oh3A
Is this the same law?
- Shytown - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 10:51 am:
Some of these sheriffs are going to help usher new ones into town if they don’t follow the law.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:02 am:
===The first lawsuit against the new assault weapons ban has been filed.===
Now the politics to an assault weapon ban becomes a more precarious position of winning in court and losing the politics… again.
It was passed, it was signed, now it’s in the courts.
“Do you support a constitutional assault weapon ban?”, it’s the trick bag the GOP will continually fail in Illinois… along with abortion
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:06 am:
–Looks like they’re using the kitchen sink approach.–
Filed in Crawford County too. Part of the 5th District Appellate Court, where the now newly elected judge Mike McHaney sits on the court.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:07 am:
I’m kind of shocked that DeVore let someone beat him to the 1st filing. Then again grifting is probably easier work then actually layering.
- JoanP - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:09 am:
= in order to evade, through political games, =
When lawyers put junk like that in their pleadings, I can’t take them seriously.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:10 am:
Of course autocorrect turns lawyering into layering!
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:13 am:
“IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
CRAWFORD COUNTY, ILLINOIS”
Smart to file in a Circuit under the 5th appellate and eventually the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:20 am:
=== Smart to file in a Circuit under the 5th appellate and eventually the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois===
I thought Republicans didn’t like “court shopping”?
I know, it’s a ruse.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:26 am:
==Part of the 5th District Appellate Court, where the now newly elected judge Mike McHaney sits on the court.==
The activist judge who created a right to fish.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:29 am:
=I thought Republicans didn’t like “court shopping”?=
I thought they didn’t like trial lawyers and being litigious? I guessed that changed a few years ago?
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:30 am:
The attorney on this case has filed other 2A cases…
“The suit was filed by attorney Thomas G. Maag who also owns a firearms-related business in Wood River”
https://www.theintelligencer.com/news/article/Lawsuit-challenges-states-near-ban-on-17413355.php
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:30 am:
==I’m kind of shocked that DeVore let someone beat him to the 1st filing.==
Yet another colorful character:
https://madisonrecord.com/stories/510564645-maag-thought-he-was-getting-mugged-not-arrested-during-sex-sting
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:37 am:
=== I thought they didn’t like trial lawyers and being litigious?===
Ah. The good ole days.
“The Democrat Party and trial lawyers in southern Illinois with their class action lawsuits and hurting…”
It was adorable back then.
Then the courts became the best place for Republicans to find sympathies to get to the now Clarence Thomas Court that McConnell masterfully (like it or not, it was a plan, McConnell wrote about his plan, and it became real) got the federal court to shift in a way that might take a generation.
To this case specifically, the more that is ruled, in a very off-handedly way with the “kitchen sink”, the more, like with abortion, voters will see that elections matter and the GOP doesn’t see things (see: polling) in 2A issues as they (in polling) see it.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:41 am:
oh, that place of the filing. who are the three guys? there have to be some fun connections. the politics and court politics down there so goofy and contentious that someone could do a parody movie.talk to people who are actually smart and practice law down there and you will hear some incredible nonsense that goes beyond what we hear politically.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:42 am:
Done correctly the ILGOP could be setting themselves up for another Dobbs like victory.
What the party struggles in accepting is that views change. You can double down on being old and angry but you can’t grow a party that way. Whether it’s a women’s right to choose, our views on guns, acceptance of SSM, or attitudes towards race and equality, we simply aren’t the same country we were 30-40 years ago. A party that can’t accept that and adapt will become increasingly irrelevant.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:43 am:
This is part of the slippery slope. These types actions are why the NRA and the likes don’t want to give an inch even if there are some reasonable changes.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:49 am:
=== This is part of the slippery slope===
Explain.
According to folks who cite multiple case law that is “settled” (after Dobbs, there can’t be such a thing as settled law in any honest discussion) so any law that wants to use legal means to allow 2A realities with a curtailing of zealot absolutes, it’s only a slippery slope is if there’s an amendment down the pike wholly repealing the 2nd.
The slippery slope argument is to buttress against the political fallout that a ruling striking down this law (all or in part) is defending something… as the politics won’t see it that way at all for those looking for some sort of ban.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:53 am:
The term slippery slope is used define a series of small steps leading up to dramatic steps. In this case, the outright ban or registration of all types of firearms.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:54 am:
OW. You did a better job than me on the explanation.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:55 am:
===The term slippery slope is used===
…way too often and mainly to frighten people because an infinitesimal fraction of those predictions ever actually come true.
Fixed it for you.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 11:56 am:
=== In this case, the outright ban or registration of all types of firearms.===
Quite the leap. Yet to see anything that is an outright ban of all types…
The registration aspects is a loser politically, so losing that aspect in a court will continue to hurt Republicans going forward.
The political trend ain’t less regulation
- Suburban Mom - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:02 pm:
Don’t threaten me with a good time
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:05 pm:
=These types actions are why the NRA and the likes don’t want to give an inch even if there are some reasonable changes.=
And if the ILGOP ties its fortunes to the NRA they do so at their own peril. When 60% of voters are in favor of an assault weapons ban and the NRA, by your own admission, is opposed to even reasonable changes, you’re on the wrong side of history.
- High Socks - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:11 pm:
Looking at that letterhead and all I can think is, Man, Dupage Republicans are just getting housed over the past 10 years.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:17 pm:
=== just getting housed===
More like unHoused. /s
- Elmer Keith - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:42 pm:
“The Attorney General’s office partners with the U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) to try to avert violence by hosting trainings for law enforcement officers…” Teaching cops that citizens who own guns are the enemy, no potential for abuse there.
Those who know Sen. Raoul’s (lack of) actions when he was in Senate Judiciary during the concealed carry bill in 2013, know that he did nothing to address the Duty to Inform in Phelps’ bill. In the House, LaShawn Ford, Will Davis and Chris Welch all brought it up in debate. Raoul is a cop enabler, first and foremost.
- thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:54 pm:
A ‘kitchen sink’ is required to contain all the unlawful bans and restrictions created by the Legislature, so that the judge is fully aware of the numerous violations of the 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS rulings created by the law.
- Soccermom - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:57 pm:
The slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy that claims one event or action will lead to another, more extreme event or action. This could be by directly causing that follow-up event, setting a precedent for it, or simply creating an environment where that follow-up event can occur. Other names for the slippery slope fallacy include the dam burst fallacy, domino fallacy, and thin end of a wedge.
A logical fallacy…
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 12:59 pm:
=== all the unlawful bans and restrictions created by the Legislature, so that the judge is fully aware of the numerous violations of the 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS rulings created by the law.===
So the legislature needs to check with a judge first before enacting laws, as you see these laws as “unlawful”?
The goal of this exercise of the legislative branch is to enact laws that meet constitutionality, and until they are ruled as unconstitutional, they are the law.
That’s the point, but there’s this zealot-thinking that doing nothing is the only legal option.
That’s why the politics to the zealots is on the wrong side.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:00 pm:
=== I thought they didn’t like trial lawyers and being litigious? ===
They prefer to have their partisan AG’s and SA’s do the dirty work on taxpayer’s dime first. Then go to partisan trial lawyers financed by wealthy supporters.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:04 pm:
==The term slippery slope is used define a series of small steps leading up to dramatic steps. In this case, the outright ban or registration of all types of firearms.==
The idea of the “slippery slope” analogy is that once you start moving down the slope, you can’t stop because it’s slippery.
It absolutely falls to pieces when you’re talking about legislation. New laws don’t happen automatically. Someone is actually going to have to introduce that bill to ban all weapons, and 60/30 are going to have to vote for it. We’re not going to accidentally slide in to a full ban on all weapons, is going to take several intentional acts.
What we’re really saying when we warn about “slippery slopes” in legislation is that we can’t argue against the current bill on its own merits, so we have to change the subject to hypothetical future bills.
- West Side the Best Side - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:06 pm:
So why, if they’re suing in the Circuit Court in Crawford County, do they keep referencing the United States Code? If you’re bringing an action and looking for relief under the USC the U.S. District Court seems like the place to be.
- Flat Bed Ford - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:33 pm:
Pot is still against federal law. Want them to enforce that one too?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:34 pm:
===Want them to enforce that one too?===
If the FBI wants to expend resources on pot smokers, they can.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:38 pm:
Thoughts and prayers to 2nd amendment people.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:40 pm:
How many trillions of dollars have we spent on the “War on Drugs?”
- H-W - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:54 pm:
Regarding sheriffs not willing to enforce the law, one angle not being addressed is how this approach is being driven by the sheriffs’ “union” - the Illinois Sheriff’s Association. My own sheriff is a vice president of that organization, and on the department facebook page, he is using the ISA logo celebrating the organization’s 95th anniversary.
When a group of unrelated people in power are submit to the directives of their fraternity, and hold their fraternity to be above and beyond the authority of the state, perhaps that fraternity needs to be brought down. This fraternity approach resembles the power of the KKK, which was brought down when crimes were crimes were committed and law enforcement ignored by local sheriffs.
Just a thought
- JB13 - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:55 pm:
– Yet to see anything that is an outright ban of all types –
True. You can still legally own six shooters and other antiques and relics, as the complaint explains, if you care to actually read it.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 1:56 pm:
As applied to guns the slippery slope was if you give in to X the. It is easier for them to come back for more in the form of Y
Chicago did a handgun ban then Did a semi-auto ban
As far as settled law Roe was never settle as 1/2 the country never really accepted it. But the judiciary embraced it and came up with the undue burden test to strike down most law regulating abortion
Ill take 50 years of a robust reading of heller
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 2:09 pm:
=== As far as settled law Roe was never settle===
An argument is made it was indeed settled as *each* of the members first said it was “settled” , and if the argument is now it’s not then each gave false testimony during their confirmations
An argument too is made that “trigger laws” that took effect due to Dobbs were in fact laws looking for the overturning of Roe, not that was not settled and the need for the trigger laws existing was not needed.
- BecauseScience - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 2:13 pm:
It looks like the lawsuit is attempting to meet the Heller requirement that the weapons being banned are “commonly in use for lawfull purposes.” That could be a real powder keg (pun intended) al la Dobbs if it reaches the US Supreme Court. Great trap that the Democrats have set for the GOP.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 2:20 pm:
The discussion too… “ban”
The Right wants no exceptions in the “ban” of abortion, and the Right also wants no “ban”, “no exceptions”.
The Right says you can’t ban a right, but you can ban a woman from the right to her own body choices
This is why the politics to all this, including this law that will face judicial scrutiny, is awful for Republicans, even when a win, likely or not to the entirety, is the outcome.
Winning the case is taking step backwards to the ILGOP politics.
If I may paraphrase “Ben Franklin” in the musical “1776”
“… a ban is always legal in the first person, such as ‘our ban.’ (Abortion) It is only in the third person - ‘their ban’ (anything 2A) - that it is illegal.”
That line always struck me as not only farcical in the context of “rebellion” as it’s used in the musical and where I replaced it with “ban” here, but it’s farcical to the great experiment of our Republic where the duality still exists in so many facets.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 2:28 pm:
-BecauseScience-
Trap or not it’s pretty hard to argue that these firearms are not in common use for lawful purposes. The best selling rifles in the country are AR patterns. It is something propponents’s are going to have to deal with they’re used for hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc. they may not be your choice but they are far from unusual.
I’d like to add that I’m not sure how dedicated the people who support Gun Rights are to the political fortunes of the Republican party. The vibe seems to be that opponents should accept this to save the Republicans from taking political Flak. Not sure that works honestly.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 2:42 pm:
=True. You can still legally own six shooters and other antiques and relics, as the complaint explains, if you care to actually read it.=
You and a few others should get together on the cost of an Evelyn Wood reading course or something.
Semi-Auto handguns are still legal. Semi Auto rifles are still legal, some will have to be registered.
You knew that, but chose to be dishonest to the law.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:09 pm:
An emergency TRO tomorrow, Tommy Boy?
What’s the irreparable harm currently being suffered?
- JDuc - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:46 pm:
Has anyone seen an actual “list” of what is considered an Assault weapon ?? Not sure the people that passed this law even know…..
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:48 pm:
== Semi-Auto handguns are still legal. Semi Auto rifles are still legal, some will have to be registered ==
Until they are not legal by another law that is passed by a legislative body. The fact that the governor of CT floated the idea of confiscating previously grandfathered and registered banned weapons under their AWB is scary enough. Look at how the current shift on Roe got people on both sides riled up for their respective views. So to day, they are still legal, you just have to register them rings hollow to some. I doubt many people arguing for the AWB here would be troubled if the grandfathered weapons were up for future confiscation because the law “changed.”
And the idea that the ILGOP should leave the AWB ban alone for the sake of political popularity is saying people should only push against political winners in court. Sorry, but that is dangerous thinking especially when it comes to constitutional matters, which we have already seen are interpreted by each side to their respective ideologies.
- High Socks - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:50 pm:
=== just getting housed===
More like unHoused. /s
HEY YO!
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:53 pm:
=== And the idea that the ILGOP should leave the AWB ban alone for the sake of political popularity is saying people should only push against political winners in court.===
No. Please keep up.
Understanding that the politics to such a win is horrendous is a political calculation not a wonky observation.
At what point was *any* comment saying that a court look wasn’t warranted or expected.
The fact that Republicans are going to keep getting beat at the ballot box, for me, is a bonus.
=== Sorry, but that is dangerous thinking especially when it comes to constitutional matters, which we have already seen are interpreted by each side to their respective ideologies.===
It’s only dangerous when Republicans embrace and support insurrection apologists.
Your choice of words is exactly why the politics of this allows Dems to win on the bigger issue…
… Winners. Make. Policy. …
All the GOP “other” issues” and governing wants… yeah, they win in court on assault weapons.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:56 pm:
=== I’d like to add that I’m not sure how dedicated the people who support Gun Rights are to the political fortunes of the Republican party.===
… and yet the GOP mantra is “Guns, God, and Family”
The Dems want to take your guns, tell you how to worship and the families “without a father” are ruining America.
Guns are the GOP. They say it’s so.
=== The vibe seems to be that opponents should accept this to save the Republicans from taking political Flak. Not sure that works honestly.===
Being against an assault weapons ban, how’s that gonna play in… DuPage?
I’d ask Bailey why he didn’t tout his 2A cred more…
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 3:57 pm:
=The vibe seems to be that opponents should accept this to save the Republicans from taking political Flak.=
I think the vibe is that whether the topic is women’s health or assault weapons Republicans increasingly find themselves at odds with the majority of voters. And in doing so they transcend from merely receiving flax to consistently losing elections.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:10 pm:
Re: DeVore
== The Court has graciously provided my clients with an emergency hearing at 11:00 A.M. tomorow in Effingham County wherein we are asking for a temporary restraining order to restore their constitutional right to bear arms while this matter proceeds through the Courts. ==
Actually, you do not need a temporary restraining order. You already have a year. Geez.
- Red Ketcher - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:13 pm:
Questions for thought
Liability to Sheriff & County ?
Blanket Refusal means no discretion exercised?
In turn does that mean No Qualified Immunity ?
Is Insurance coverage negated ?
Does Sheriff face personal liability ?
Has Sheriff exposed his County to uncovered damages ?
Just thoughts
- H-W - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:13 pm:
My mistake above. It sounds as if his client is a vendor of weapons. I misunderstood when he said he was defending the right to bear arms. Apparently, he is defending the right to sell arms of any kind.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:16 pm:
“Guns are the GOP. They say it’s so”
Not denying that the GOP wants it to be so. My point is more that the otherside of that equation doesn’t feel as wedded to the GOP. That’s all I’m saying.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:18 pm:
=Until they are not legal by another law that is passed by a legislative body.=
Whew, take a breath. They are legal. If what you say is the case then literally anything is possible in the infinite world of “what if”.
And maybe take a short break on the NRA reading.
=The fact that the governor of CT floated the idea of confiscating previously grandfathered and registered banned weapons under their AWB is scary enough.=
This is Illinois. Just a geographical fact.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:20 pm:
With respect…
=== My point is more that the otherside of that equation doesn’t feel as wedded to the GOP. ===
Where else they gonna go?
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:23 pm:
=My point is more that the otherside of that equation doesn’t feel as wedded to the GOP.=
If so things are even more dire for the GOP than I would have thought as you’re suggesting that a party is loyal to a group of individuals who feel no need to reciprocate.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:25 pm:
=== scary===
*Not* banning assault weapons is the scary part?
Boy, the GOP here will be lost for a long while.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:40 pm:
–If so things are even more dire for the GOP than I would have thought as you’re suggesting that a party is loyal to a group of individuals who feel no need to reciprocate.–
Define reciprocating? Donating, voting in primaries, etc. sure. Not suing to overturn a law that they believe to be a direct attack on their rights to protect the GOP in IL, no.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:42 pm:
=== Not suing to overturn a law that they believe to be a direct attack on their rights to protect the GOP in IL, no.==
What does this even mean?
With respect, there ain’t too many 2A Dems around the GA these days.
Can you name any?
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 4:46 pm:
Of course the news list Devore as the 1st to file.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wcia.com/news/devore-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-of-assault-weapon-ban/amp/
- Todd - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 5:38 pm:
JS — the gov of CT just said the quite part out loud which is why many of us will never register anything with the state
They’ e told us what they want and where they are prepared to go
- A. Lincoln's gloves - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 5:43 pm:
Hopefully, the AG remembers to defend the cases at home and doesn’t put them on the back burner to our detriment.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 5:45 pm:
=JS — the gov of CT just said the quite part out loud which is why many of us will never register anything with the state=
Not sure why you think something in CT excuses your lawbreaking?
=They’ e told us what they want and where they are prepared to go=
I recommend staying out of CT then. It is and will continue to be legal to own a gun in Illinois.
I think what you are talking about/projecting is the GOP propensity to call something settled law and then try to change that. Maybe your own political dishonesty leads you to see it in others?
Either way, sounds like you have decided that you will soon be a lawbreaker and not a law abider.
Good luck with that.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 6:11 pm:
== Has anyone seen an actual “list” of what is considered an Assault weapon ?? ==
The enacted bill contains an extensive list of now banned firearms by specific brand and model.
- Big Dipper - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 6:16 pm:
==Hopefully, the AG remembers to defend the cases at home and doesn’t put them on the back burner to our detriment.==
Yes, because he filed an amicus brief he won’t defend cases where he represents actual parties. Take a nap.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 6:18 pm:
== Actually, you do not need a temporary restraining order. You already have a year. Geez. ==
Parts took effective immediately, ie, new sales. Registration or disposal is almost a year out.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 6:23 pm:
== Has Sheriff exposed his County to uncovered damages ? ==
Maybe not. The statement in Sangamon County was quite nuanced. Made it clear they would be exercising discretion, which would have likely been the case anyway. Also made it clear they would follow any court orders.
- Deputy Sheriff - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 7:19 pm:
I’ve asked this question many times but no one has answered…. Does anyone remember when JBP chose to ignore the statutes requiring the state to take IDOC inmates and individuals committed to DHS? Where were the strongly worded letters from the General Assembly then?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 7:22 pm:
===I’ve asked this question many times but no one has answered…===
Try that holding of you breath again.
:)
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 7:41 pm:
== And maybe take a short break on the NRA reading ===
JS…
Hmmmm, not an NRA member. Regardless, what was said was said. Geographical or not, the playbook is the same from state to state. Even our own governor has said he wants the IL AWB to be a model for other states.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 7:44 pm:
===the playbook is the same from state to state.===
But, but it’s unconstitutional… so what do you care, right?
Either you believe or don’t… I mean, Roe was settled law.
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 8:21 pm:
OW,
But it is currently law, so you have told us. If IL didn’t bother to thumb its nose at Bruen, we wouldn’t be here.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 8:27 pm:
===But it is currently law, so you have told us===
Well, if I had to tell you that, it says more about “following the law” even more than actually doing that.
Let’s try this again…
===the playbook is the same from state to state.===
But, but it’s unconstitutional… so what do you care, right?
It’s in the court system now, as was expected, but now realized
If a TRO can occur, than that is up to counsel to ask and a judge to concur, no?
Why worry about the long term “state by state” playbook if it’s unconstitutional? Let it play out.
- Deputy Sheriff - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 8:48 pm:
Typical response OW….. you know I’m correct therefore you have no rebuttal
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 8:52 pm:
===Typical===
(Sigh)
Yeah, typical dorm room ridiculousness that you want this whatabouting… because you know the law is correct but you’d like discourse to the moment.
It’s tiring.
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 8:52 pm:
OW…
And when it plays out in the courts and is found unconstitutional, will the people championing it here do a mea culpa and let it go?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 8:56 pm:
- Deputy Sheriff -
Gotta be honest, whatabouting this as you were an anti-vaxxer and wanting now to discuss things like the law, statutes, and also the bragging about your office thumbing it’s collective nose…
Maybe that’s why I respond as I do… that and pretending we didn’t have such a discussion, that’ll do it.
DeVore is “on the case”, this law was most definitely going to face a challenge, let it play out. Meanwhile the politics to it will be awful
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:00 pm:
===will the people championing it here do a mea culpa and let it go?===
Nope.
They will use it politically to take it to Republicans as they are dangerous to children and families, championing the “no assault weapon ban” as a reason not to vote for Republicans… and try to again pass a law that could be constitutional… like 2A advocates have done for decades for their cause.
You need an apology? Are your feelings that hurt… already?
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:07 pm:
OW,
If the people use it to bash Republicans, they know the courts will have found it unconstitutional. People will bash away from whatever side they are on.
And again with the condescending comments when I have said nothing of the kind to you.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:10 pm:
===If the people use it to bash Republicans, they know the courts will have found it unconstitutional. People will bash away from whatever side they are on.===
Polling says otherwise, Bailey not touting his *own* 2A credentials, while Pritzker did it for him says otherwise…
… and voters don’t do nuance.
Voters do understand Morgan on the floor talking about the parade tragedy as Republicans (less Durkin) were against an assault weapons ban.
It’s a loser. Like Dobbs.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:13 pm:
===And again with the condescending comments when I have said nothing of the kind to you.===
I mean… lol
===will the people championing it here do a mea culpa and let it go?===
This is, what… not understanding this is a long game issue?
Why would *anyone* arguing merits or thoughts have a responsibility to… apologize?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:19 pm:
=== when it plays out in the courts and is found unconstitutional, will the people championing it here do a mea culpa and let it go? ===
Hades no. When this version of the court finds a law previously judged constitutional to be unconstitutional, I will respond as vigorously (albeit not as violently) in opposition as those who disagreed with Roe.
- Just Me 2 - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:29 pm:
Re- ISRA lawsuit looks like an exercise in donor relations, like the vast majority of BS that happens in state politics.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 17, 23 @ 9:29 pm:
- Norseman - knows the score.
I want to see it play out and the circumstances that, if others say it won’t pass muster, it fails.