Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 43,448
- Reactions
- 113,145
Illinois attorney motions to reconsider assault weapons ban
An Illinois attorney is petitioning to revive one of the lawsuits against the Illinois assault weapons ban.
newschannel20.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If anyone is following the Caulkins case (Illinois AWB)...Illinois assault weapons ban faces new challenge
The law prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.www.newsweek.com
The Caulkins petition for cert has not been granted. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-510.htmlIf anyone is following the Caulkins case (Illinois AWB)... the SCOTUS petition for cert. was granted. I don't have a link to the SC order handy... but basically... it was granting cert. and ordered (mind you.. "ordered") by the SCOTUS that both parties file briefings for review by no later than Dec. 14th. The question... "why the Ill AWB should not be stayed".
The latest update? Evidently, the governor feels he is above the law and chosen to ignore the SCOTUS order. Dec. 1st they filed a waiver with the SC. Basically... "yeah... you can't boss us around and we won't be filing any briefing for the SC".
View attachment 1774769
It'll be interesting to see how thumbing your nose at a SCOTUS order flies....
You're right. Edited accordingly. So many cases floating through the courts it's difficult to keep them all straight.The Caulkins petition for cert has not been granted. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-510.html
The USSC set a deadline of December 14, 2023 for submission of briefs on the question of whether the USSC should hear this case. The State waived its right to file an opposition to the request for review. The State did not ignore any order of the court in this particular circumstance.
The Caulkins lawsuit is unusual because it focuses on the equal protection clause as a reason the assault weapons ban is invalid rather than the 2A. The State may be hoping that the USSC, if it is going to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans, picks a different case that is based on the 2A.
Lets hope it f_cks them royaly...You're right. Edited accordingly. So many cases floating through the courts it's difficult to keep them all straight.
IMHO, It's still rather an arrogant move to decline to submit a brief to the USSC.
You have an interesting way to say "like a pedo in gen pop" there...Lets hope it f_cks them royaly...
Only on the question of whether to hear the case at all. Not on the question of whether the ban violates equal protection.Is that what Armed Scholar is talking about?
I was under the impression that it means Illinois is not going to offer a defense and allow SCOTUS to make the ruling on their own.
From a different thread. Huh. Seems like I already floated the Equal Protection clause as a good basis for a lawsuit without necessarily involving 2ASo.. maybe certain States like Texas, Idaho, Montana, and so forth.. ought to bring a lawsuit against other States for violating "Equal Protection" clause and for reinforcing lawful interstate commerce of firearms and accessories as well as carry laws? might be a good time to bring that specific fight to SCOTUS before Thomas retires.
Edit. Basically "what's lawful to purchase and possess in one State should be lawful in the 49 other States".