Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Giannoulias promises more accessible databases, and I have some suggestions
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** The Illinois State Rifle Association, along with the Second Amendment Foundation and others has filed a motion for preliminary injunction with the Southern District US Court. Click here to read it.
* More on that NRA lawsuit from the Sun-Times…
Two Second Amendment lawyers who helped win a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a New York concealed carry gun law are now challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ assault weapons ban — with help from the National Rifle Association.
Paul Clement, who successfully argued the New York case, is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the latest federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Illinois’ two-week old ban.
Clement is a former partner in Kirkland & Ellis’ Washington, D.C., office who served as solicitor general of the United States, representing the government in cases before the nation’s top court from 2004 to 2008, during the George W. Bush administration. […]
Clement and attorney Erin Murphy began their own firm after Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis decided it would no longer handle Second Amendment-related litigation. Murphy, who was part of the New York case, is also working on the challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, filed Tuesday in the Southern District of Illinois.
You can read the lawsuit by clicking here.
* Also…
An emergency hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning for a second lawsuit against House Bill 5471.
The lawsuit calls the ban unconstitutional and an attack on citizens’ right to bear arms. Tom DeVore, the former Republican candidate for state attorney general, is the plaintiff in the case, and he is joined by former gubernatorial candidate Darren Bailey. Last week, a judge in Effingham County granted a temporary restraining order blocking the law.
* While he’s an opponent of the new law, Livingston County State’s Attorney Randy Yedinak told the Pontiac Daily Leader that the written public statements by dozens of county sheriffs vowing not to enforce the law wer unwise…
“I do think there’s a little bit of danger in people making these statements about whether they will or will not enforce the law, or they will or will not charge people,” Yedinak said. “That’s giving up the very discretion they have to use. We saw it a lot during COVID when the governor was passing all sorts of legislation and people were just banging on my door, hounding me on the phone to say that I’m not going to enforce these COVID laws.
“We had one particular person running around here in Pontiac (who tested positive for COVID and said) he was going to cough on as many people (as he could). If I would have gone on record and said I wasn’t going to enforce those laws, then I wouldn’t be able to do something about that guy. That’s something a lot of state’s attorney’s recognize and that’s why you don’t see a lot of state’s attorneys making these statements because there maybe a situation where we want to enforce these brand new laws.”
* Meanwhile, “Steven in Pecatonica” called in to Brian Mackey’s 21st Show today to chime in on the assault weapons ban…
Steven in Pecatonica: I’m calling to see if I could speak to what the gentleman was discussing in terms of the implementation of the law. It’s my understanding that my hometown Dixon, Illinois, county seat of Lee County, recently just this last week had a demonstration for law enforcement officers, showing them what amounted to an armored skid steer that they were being directed, they’re being told that this was going to be used for the implementation of this law. That goes in contrary to what the gentleman just said.
Brian Mackey: All right. Thank you for that. A skid steer. I guess that’s like a piece of heavy equipment, full bulldozer like thing. Sheriff Dart, are you hearing anything about this?
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart: Absolutely not. I mean, that would be contrary to literally every type of law enforcement doctrine that we have. I would imagine it would be something similar to what I said earlier about going to people with revoked FOID cards, where you attempt to approach, knock on the door and see if they are aware of the law and all these other things. That’s been the normal approach that people would take. It would be literally contrary to every law enforcement doctrine I can think of to use something like that.
Brian Mackey: Kathleen Sances, I can’t remember if it was you or one of the other guests who mentioned misinformation from people who are advocating for a broader view of gun rights. Say more about what your perspective is on that.
Kathleen Sances with GPAC: The sheriff touched on this. Nothing in this bill says that we’re going to knock on your door and take your existing collection of weapons and if you do have existing weapons, you have almost a year to get them registered. So I think that that’s the disinformation we’re talking about. This whole notion of confiscation is a typical gun lobby talking point. The gun lobby is motivated by the greed of the gun manufacturers who are worried about their profits. And you know, on the other side, our coalition is a movement of survivors, advocates, policy experts, faith leaders and youth who are motivated to keep our families and communities safe. And we’re going to continue to do so. We’re going to stand up and fight against this disinformation.
Not sure where Steven in Pecatonica got his info, but there’s nothing on the Lee County sheriff’s Facebook page, nothing in the Google and I searched a couple of social media sites and found nothing there, either. Maybe some of you can help track down this rumor.
…Adding… Just as an FYI, the SAFE-T Act prohibits purchases of these tracked armored vehicles.
* Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde was on the same show today and said this…
They simply want to make it impossible for people on the South Side, people on the West Side to be able to obtain a firearm either through regulations, red tape, fees, or whatever. This is your modern Jim Crow law.
Um, OK.
* Press release…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Attorney General for the District of Columbia Brian Schwalb led a coalition of 18 attorneys general asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to reverse a lower court decision that enjoined New York’s prohibition on carrying firearms in places of worship and religious observation. In an amicus brief, Raoul and the coalition argue that the prohibition is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and with a long tradition of similar regulations designed to meet the states’ responsibility to protect their residents from the harmful effects of gun violence.
The coalition argues that states have an interest in limiting the possession and use of firearms in locations where people exercise other constitutionally protected rights, where vulnerable populations like children and older adults gather, and where large groups of people meet in confined spaces. Locations like churches, synagogues, and mosques are the heart of many people’s religious exercise. The brief notes that they are also increasingly targets of gun violence, which may dissuade people from attending religious services and otherwise exercising their First Amendment rights.
“States have the authority to craft policies that best protect their residents from gun violence – including those restricting firearms in places where large groups of people gather in confined spaces to exercise their constitutional right to observe their religious beliefs,” Raoul said. “States’ long-standing authority to tailor firearm regulations to local nuances is essential for policymakers to be able to address gun violence and keep their communities safe.”
The brief explains that though the U.S. Supreme Court recently altered the judicial analysis for Second Amendment claims in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court’s decision did not upend the states’ long-standing authority to regulate the carrying of firearms in certain places. The court reaffirmed in Bruen that the Second Amendment has never given Americans an unrestricted right to carry loaded firearms in all public places. Instead, states may enact a variety of regulations to combat the problem of gun violence, including solutions tailored to local needs.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Giannoulias promises more accessible databases, and I have some suggestions
Next Post: Afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“They simply want to make it impossible for people on the South Side, people on the West Side to be able to obtain a firearm either through regulations, red tape, fees, or whatever. This is your modern Jim Crow law.”
Straight up delusional.
Comment by btowntruthfromforgottonia Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:26 pm
Today’s Illinois GOP, always steering into the skid.
Comment by Roadrager Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:27 pm
invoking the South and West sides. we see you Todd.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:30 pm
What part of “A well regulated militia” is unclear?
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:39 pm
=== This is your modern Jim Crow law. ===
LOL, a nonsensical and shameful comparison to racist policies to deflect from the actual goals for regulation.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:41 pm
I’m sure Todd is real concerned for the folks on the South and West sides. /snark/
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:42 pm
Lot to unpack.
Key point - the two Federal lawsuits are the ones to watch. Those go directly to the constitutional question of how much regulation is too far under the current court.
Livingston County State’s Attorney Randy Yedinak … a properly nuanced take on things … even if voters don’t do nuance.
RE Todd’s statement … both sides tend to take a point and stretch it almost beyond recognition. Yes, there is a hassle, a few, and often a delay in first obtaining a FOID. And yes, it can disenfranchise convicted felons. But it’s far from a complete ban on firearms ownership.
RE Rahm’s comment about churches … he could be off base there. A number of churches have formed security details because of attacks on churches, and some members of those details are concealed carry holders. Even my neighborhood church formed such a detail (mostly ex-military or LEO) after burglaries of cars during services (a couple of teens got a talking to by some intimidating guys). And they lock the church doors shortly after services begin. Over the top? Maybe, but they understand the concerns of the elderly members.
Rahm RE Bruen … since the court didn’t get very specific, like most politicians, he’s putting the spin most favorable to his viewpoint on it.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:44 pm
1. If you make it prohibitively expensive to use firearms, only the rich will be able to use them.
2. Ranked by average income, do South and West-side residents not have lower average incomes than those elsewhere in the City?
You can dislike the way he phrased it, but Todd’s quoted statement is accurate as far as it pertains to the effects of making firearm ownership more expensive for the average person. Especially in areas of high crime (as shown in an earlier post today), a victim of assault/robbery/etc. should have the ability to defend themselves without having to spend hundreds of dollars to comply with various fees/etc.
Comment by Former ILSIP Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:45 pm
I’m so impressed with the MAGA GOP concern about poor people having access to weapons of mass murder.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:54 pm
===This is your modern Jim Crow law===
Pretty good example of why Republicans can’t get to 10% of the Black vote. They’ll spend an entire campaign spamming suburban households with pictures of black convicts, claim to be victims of “anti-white racism,” and demand that nothing about actual racism be taught in schools. Not exactly great groundwork to lay for the next message, “what’s best for Black people is more firepower on the street.”
Comment by vern Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 1:58 pm
“… Yedinak said. “That’s giving up the very discretion they have to use. ”
Exactly , and presence of discretion is the key to
Qualified Immunity which protects the Sheriffs and their Counties.
Giving up discretion and the protection it affords is irresponsible and as SA Yedinak says it’s : Unwise.
Comment by Red Ketcher Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 2:03 pm
The skid steer is a real thing, outfitted for SWAT teams. https://therook.ringpower.com/
As to if it was purchased or done so with this law in mind, I have no idea. It’s not an armored personal carrier. It’s more like a small, easy to transport, deploy and maintain modular system that I suspect gets around prohibitions on larger, military surplus vehicles. In essence it’s an armored platform that can go anywhere, can easily move cars, and can put a protected firing platform right through someone’s living room wall. Nifty huh?
Comment by Brock.friedman Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 2:11 pm
@ Jerry
== What part of “A well regulated militia” is unclear? ==
The “well regulated” part.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 2:15 pm
I’m just following the Constitution.
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 2:45 pm
The “Armored skid steer” is around as Brock.friedman mentioned. ISP had one down in Collinsville. (Parked in the front lot on a trailer) It was there long before the AWB bill was voted on. ISP seems to like buying useless toys so I doubt it was over thus law.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 2:56 pm
The politics to the law is forcing rhetoric that is unrelated to the law but either aids or hurts the politics of 2A and the reality to that is the politics to the law, struck down, altered, whatever, is that Republicans can be easily seen in a light that could be spun as “dangerous” or reckless when, tragically, another mass casualty event happens and an assault weapon is used.
It’s already started, the losing politics
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 3:01 pm
==I’m just following the Constitution.== and ignoring the court:
Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? or are you just that challenged at reading?
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 576–626.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576–595.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 3:04 pm
I think it is unfair to dismiss Todd Vandermyde’s Jim Crow comment as “delusional”. Racially selective enforcement of gun control is a HUGE problem in Cook County. See letter circulated by criminal justice reformers back during lame duck session: https://twitter.com/slkollmann/status/1612914317967462400?s=46&t=_Z91CwhJ1zBuHaqz_i4H3w
Comment by Come on, lakefront liberals do not "own" racial justice Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 3:28 pm
Good to see that our constitutional right is being defended in federal court.
Comment by JDuc Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 3:30 pm
Congratulations to the NRA on a hugely successful week on the west coast!
Comment by Steve Z Wednesday, Jan 25, 23 @ 3:48 pm