Other State Illinois attorney motions to reconsider assault weapons ban

[The Heretic]

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

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

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

 

[Yarome]

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

If anyone is following the Caulkins case (Illinois AWB)...

The latest update? A petition for cert was filed to the SCOTUS and a deadline of Dec 14th was set for all parties to submit their briefs. Dec. 1st, Illinois state filed a waiver with the SC. Basically... they won't be filing any brief for the SC.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-510/291969/20231201102622644_Caulkins%20v.%20Pritzker%20BIO%20waiver.pdf

 

[Diamondback]

Here's hoping they see it the way Miller's absence was taken in challenging NFA34...

 

[User 1234]

If 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".

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-510/291969/20231201102622644_Caulkins%20v.%20Pritzker%20BIO%20waiver.pdf

View attachment 1774769

It'll be interesting to see how thumbing your nose at a SCOTUS order flies....

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.

 

[Yarome]

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.

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.

 

[RobMa]

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.

Lets hope it f_cks them royaly...

 

[Diamondback]

Lets hope it f_cks them royaly...

You have an interesting way to say "like a pedo in gen pop" there...

 

[PiratePast40]

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.

 

[User 1234]

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.

Only on the question of whether to hear the case at all. Not on the question of whether the ban violates equal protection.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A lawsuit under the Equal Protection clause instead of 2A sounds like an interesting route to take, because it could also be used by one of the 27(27, not 28?) Constitutional Carry/Permitless States. Because under these, federally a citizen of one State should have the same protection as another State citizen, am I reading that correctly?

Edit.

In theory; carry should be treated the same or better than drivers licenses.

Arms should be treated the same in 50 States, ergo if commonly possessed for lawful purposes in 45+ States, shouldn't be banned at all under Heller/Miller.

But.. yeah. Under 2A, no citizen should be disbarred from the ownership and usage of arms and armor, IMO.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So.. 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".

From a different thread. Huh. Seems like I already floated the Equal Protection clause as a good basis for a lawsuit without necessarily involving 2A