Tag: Illinois

Consistent with Inconsistency

Illinois’s legal brief seeks to defend their recently-enacted “assault weapons” ban by arguing that the lethality of these semi-automatic firearms means that they may be banned consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith discusses this lethality argument here. [Watch]

Because the last thing you want to do when fighting armed attackers is kill them!

Be sure to also open up Illinois’ brief and Smith’s review on Beccaria, linked under the video.

[Via Jess]

Not Now

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a request to block state and local laws barring the sale of assault-style weapons in Illinois while a group of challenges to those laws continues in the lower courts. There were no dissents publicly recorded from the unsigned order, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision. [More]

I’m going to resist reading more into this for now.

[Via Jess]

Oh, It’s the Safety Dance

In particular, the court explained, “the text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected.” Id. at 18. “Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition.” [More]

So it was the Founders’ contention that only “safe” arms were “necessary to the security of a free State”?

[Via Jess]

Who Will Judge the Judge?

IL Supreme Court justice that’s under fire was sued for legal malpractice (and lost the case) [More]

Nice to know our rights are being decided by the very best… Is there anything cleaner than Illinois politics?

If you don’t have Mom-At-Arms bookmarked, you’re missing out on routine unique “finds” that the ‘real reporters” will never tell you about.

Called into Question

On certain firearms being banned over others, McGlynn gave Wells several scenarios. One he gave was of a wife home alone with four intruders… On certain firearms features, like collapsible stocks being banned, McGlynn gave another scenario… [More]

I don’t see how McGlynn can rule against the plaintiffs without showing himself to be cognitively dissonant to the point of being bipolar.

As for Wells, he’s just a damn Judas to his countrymen. All he can spout back are BS platitudes.

[Via Jess]

The Vichycon Difference!

A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled to keep an Illinois state-wide “assault weapons” ban in effect, denying a request from a business owner who claims the ban is unconstitutional. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to uphold a lower ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall, who found the ban to be “constitutionally sound,” despite the request for an injunction… [More]

Kendall was nominated by George W. Bush.

The Seventh Circuit has seven Republican appointees and three Democrat appointees.

The Finest Judges Money Can Buy

Yesterday we explored how Gov. Pritzker of Illinois played fast and loose with campaign finance rules to stack the state Supreme Court he is appealing his “assault weapon” ban legal setback to.

Mom-at-Arms has updated its report to prove a conflict of interest and to cite U.S. Supreme Court precedent:

Bishop On Air says “recuse.” (14:56)

The Real Conspirators

Illinois judge rules state’s gun ban and registry unconstitutional [More]

That the people have to go to court because the government– where everyone involved swore an oath — is determined to violate the Constitution says much about the treasonous scoundrels in political power.

It also explains why under tyranny, “seditious conspiracy” seems more like a civic duty than a crime.

[Via Dan Gifford]

UPDATE

And Pritzker is appealing to judges who owe their seats to his inherited money.

This is by far the bigger story, meaning don’t look for the DSM to give a damn. Maybe we can at least urge the “gun rights” folks with a longer reach to use it.

Biased Ruling Supporting Semiauto Ban Enabled by Sham Confirmations

Who but someone willfully deluding herself, a liar, or both, would deliberately ignore that the militia is comprised of citizens “capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time”? Its function was — and still is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia did not assemble on the green bearing torches and pitchforks. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat. [More]

And worst of all, this robed … thing … was confirmed by a Republican majority Senate.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

A Bill That Would Require Legislators to Know What the Hell They Are Talking About [Watch]

Nah. I see two basic problems:

I don’t want an ignorant enemy to know what they’re talking about because then they’ll be in a better position to anticipate a bill’s vulnerabilities and make it more bulletproof.

Besides, those pulling their strings know exactly what they’re talking about, and that citizen disarmament is not about guns, it’s about control.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights