New York Firearms Forum banner

Ban on Assault Weapon upheld by District Court in Highland Park Illinois

4K views 62 replies 21 participants last post by  Blackhorse15A 
#1 ·
So, how many think that SCOTUS will turn in our favor? Since nobody can really gauge anymore which conservative judge will decide to be liberal for a day, this goes to show that these judges are turning communist. I have a bad feeling that no matter how GOOD the lawyer is, its gonna always come down to the judge and that is the problem. Shooter always and/or continues to claim that Kennedy is all pro 2A but Kennedy sways both ways (no pun there). If there is ANY denial here, now is the time to bring it up in a forum like this. I am not here to ruffle feathers, I am not here to be a Debbie Downer. However, I am a realist and I am not in denial about this whole liberal/progressive BS agenda that is spreading worse than the Ebola virus. I use to NOT be in denial myself and think that we have a chance to rid us of the SAFE ACT or the parts that suck but with all these judges ruling against the assault weapons, I am not too sure of myself anymore. So, with that in mind please read the newest assault on the rights of US citizens.

District judge upholds Highland Park ban on assault weapon | Lake County News-Sun

As for me .........hi, I am ny12883 and I am in "denial" that we are going to be triumphant in all this BS. So, unless I see winning of rights to the so called "assault weapons" don't be in denial...................just saying in my own opinion!
 
See less See more
#2 ·
There is no doubt in my mind that armed conflict is coming to America, probably within the next 100 years. Hopefully our kids and our kid's kids aren't brainwashed liberal trolls by then.
 
#9 ·
You beat me to it. I was going to say that you can't even trust a vote count. You can't trust people in government to represent you. You can't trust.. period.. The only thing you can trust is that you've either won or you've lost; and when that is the only thing you can trust, the only thing left to assure freedom, is a fight.
 
#3 ·
#4 ·
Here is the judges decision. Havent read through it yet. Is anyone aware of any federal cases that struck down an assault weapon ban? Wondering if the SCOTUS might deny cert due to lack of a split, or could these AW cases reach the high court about the same time and be joined?

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Entered by the Honorable John W for Friedman v. City of Highland Park :: Justia Dockets & Filings
The lack of a split worries me too but since these cases go directly against Heller maybe they will take them up... I hope.
 
#5 ·
I read the decision. The judge says due to disputed facts he can't resolve the first part of his test (are these protected arms) so he assumes they are and continues with the second question about interest balancing. Flies against Heller and McDonald but it appers this is the jurisprudence laid out by the 7th circuit. The judge makes a stong argument about the banned weapons being highly military. This completely ignores Miller! Weapons with military utility ARE protected. The interst balancing also ignores the plain language of the Constitution that makes military readiness and training of the citizens a lawful purpose to own arms. Given that this judge has found these weapons to have such strong military utility, he also ignores the guidance in Presser that the states cannot disarm the people to the point of depriving the federal government of its rightful resource of a militia that provides its own arms appropriate for military duty.

I am really amazed that when it comes to AW bans that lawyers arent pounding on Miller and Presser and allowing the States to focus on Heller to the exclusion of anything else.
 
#8 ·
Absolutely absurd. We all know the reason behind the 2A. What are we supposed to do? Fight the military with sticks and rocks?
 
#7 ·
State's don't have the right to trump the Bill of Rights and under Heller, "aw's" are protected under the Second Amendment. Period.
 
#13 ·
After reading the article and doing some research it seems that this judge has upheld other bans before , one that he upheld was overturned by the 7 th which gave Illinios the right to carry . Now before every one gets upset this judge is known for being an " activist judge " and since he has been overturned before , I'm betting this will be thrown out also . The suit ( using the scope white paper analysis ) is so full of hearsay evidence that it should be over come by a lawyer who throws out the hearsay abjection . This judge has done this before so I'm waiting for the 7 th to take up the suit to watch what they do with his amalisis .
 
#16 ·
See my post on the SCOPE white paper. I'm trying to understand it. Does it mean we can refute the evidence or that they ****ed us and we have to deal with it?
 
#22 ·
"In his ruling, Judge John Darrah concluded that the city had a public interest in banning military-style firearms, and that the ban did not significantly burden the constitutional right to armed self-defense."

did not significantly burden the constitutional right !!! So if caught on the edge of a no gun zone..can that also be used as a defense ?
In NY .08 is the max for dwi..so if at .081 or a littele better....your not "significantly" in the bag.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to uphold ?
 
#26 ·
Good to see you "John Stark!"

Guys we are screwed, Norm's ken on legal matters extends beyond speculation.

In short a state has the right to regulate in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare, of its citizens, balance that with the 2nd Am, as the gun bigget judges race to oppress us, picking the standard of review they choose, ignoring facts, and bootstrapping a ruling favoring the Tyranny, they all the while are creating a body of federal cases "applying" mid-level scrutiny making it easier for the government to win.

Yet even if strict scrutiny were applied (as I believe it should), though rarer, a state can still win that one, we are facing an institutional attack, it is larger than a dozen of Democrat AND Republican appointed judges shredding the intent of the Founders, it is a Zeigeist of gun-biggetry that has come due after generations failing to stand tall and fight it in its inception, like 1911 in NYS (the Sullivan Act), or 1934 at the Federal level (the NFA).
 
#40 ·
In short a state has the right to regulate in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare, of its citizens, balance that with the 2nd Am, as the gun bigget judges race to oppress us, picking the standard of review they choose, ignoring facts, and bootstrapping a ruling favoring the Tyranny, they all the while are creating a body of federal cases "applying" mid-level scrutiny making it easier for the government to win.

Yet even if strict scrutiny were applied (as I believe it should), though rarer, a state can still win that one, we are facing an institutional attack, it is larger than a dozen of Democrat AND Republican appointed judges shredding the intent of the Founders, it is a Zeigeist of gun-biggetry that has come due after generations failing to stand tall and fight it in its inception, like 1911 in NYS (the Sullivan Act), or 1934 at the Federal level (the NFA).
forum members need to read this over, and over to really understand the position we are in
it's not pretty
 
#30 ·
So using the same logic the state can deem "sniper rifles" unusually dangerous and ban all hunting rifles?
 
#31 · (Edited)
NY violates Heller with its pistol permitting system because the State is May-Issue -- an adult 21 or over cannot legally possess or touch a handgun in this State without a pistol permit. Judges can deny permits for just about any reason. No pistol permit, no possession of a handgun in one's home for self defense (a fundamental right declared in the Heller decision - licensing of fundamental rights is substantially problematic on many levels). This is where the NYS tyrannical pistol permit system can be (and is being) successfully attacked.

As for AW bans, I think these will eventually fail - even the liberal mainstreamers are beginning to realize that AW is a BS term fabricated by the fear-mongering media and megalomanics like Bloomturd. Don't forget about the 20+ attorney generals from other States who launched a lawsuit at NYS because of the AW classifications and bans based on cosmetic features of modern sporting rifles. The attack on so-called AW's is also losing traction among gun-hater groups. They're focusing on background checks at this point because there are still a number of States that have rather lax policies and loopholes. Additionally, the hard violent crime statistics released by the FBI et. al. have been thrown in the faces of gun hater groups proving that rifles are only used in a tiny fraction of gun crimes, with so-called "AW's" barely topping 3-4% in terms of use in crimes. It just so happens that MSR's were used in a few noteworthy mass shootings over the past decade which is why gun hater groups ferociously jerked off when they realized the potential they had to push for legislation banning them.
 
#33 ·
NY violates Heller with its pistol permitting system because the State is May-Issue -- an adult 21 or over cannot legally possess or touch a handgun in this State without a pistol permit. Judges can deny permits for just about any reason. No pistol permit, no possession of a handgun in one's home for self defense. This is where the NYS tyrannical pistol permit system can be (and is being) successfully attacked.

As for AW bans, I think these will eventually fail - even the liberal mainstreamers are beginning to realize that AW is a BS term fabricated by the fear-mongering media and megalomanics like Bloomturd. Don't forget about the 20+ attorney generals from other States who launched a lawsuit at NYS because of the AW classifications and bans based on cosmetic features of modern sporting rifles. The attack on so-called AW's is also losing traction among gun-hater groups. They're focusing on background checks at this point because there are still a number of States that have rather lax policies and loopholes. Additionally, the hard violent crime statistics released by the FBI et. al. have been thrown in the faces of gun hater groups proving that rifles are only used in a tiny fraction of gun crimes, with so-called "AW's" barely topping 3-4% in terms of use in crimes. It just so happens that MSR's were used in a few noteworthy mass shootings over the past decade which is why gun hater groups ferociously jerked off when they realized the potential they had to push for legislation banning them.
If I could like this a thousand times , I would ! Thank you Chris !
 
#37 ·
Honestly, we're probably lucky that Highland Park decided to ban most semiautos, and that their ban seems to be the most extensive. That greatly increases the chance of a circuit split going forward. Right now, we already having the D.C. Circuit upholding a ban and a 10-round capacity limit. We all know about the NYSRPA and CT cases heading up to the 2d Circuit, and there's one from MD heading up to the 4th Circuit as well. Now Highland Park will be heading up to the 7th Circuit, which is a much more gun-friendly circuit than the 2d. Also, Scalia pays particular attention to the 7th Circuit because of his ties to Chicago.
 
#38 ·
Very well stated Sir ! Everybody thinks that this is the end when it's just the beginning to watch the court system work in overturning Highland Parks ban . MD,s case will hit the court in November and we should be getting an opinion by the court about the same time so when all of these suits are finished then they will be applied to SCOTUS for cert . I'm thinking that with all 4 suits applying for cert,1 will be granted . ( this is just speculation but I think it's an educated guess at this point ) the states that have some type of ban on " assualt weapons " has grown even though it was explained in Heller that the rules were very plain . ( even for an idiot like me , if I can figure it out , these judges should be able to ) with the splits among the courts , SCOTUS will be hard pressed to not grant cert on atleast one of these suits ! There I said it !
 
#39 ·
I agree with the above points, and I am certainly hopeful, but frustrated, as we all are, because gun rights are being treated like a rigged 1980s WWF wrestling match, at least then we knew it was fake, these fecal pheliac judges disregard:
FBI facts,
Justice Department statistics,
logic,
the US Constitution's Bill of Rights (supposedly the most sacred part),
and US Supreme Court rulings, to advance their hatred and biggetry towards gun ownership, and the police powers of a state offers wide latitude especially when the weaker review standard is used, the hornbooks and legal commentary are already suggesting the mid level scrutiny for gun rights like it is a foregone conclusion.

Meanwhile justice Scalia and the so-called "conservative block" remain mute.
 
#43 · (Edited)
[COLOR=#ffff00 said:
Burzum;[/COLOR]961401US Supreme Court rulings, to advance their hatred and biggetry towards gun ownership, and the police powers of a state offers wide latitude especially when the weaker review standard is used, the hornbooks and legal commentary are already suggesting the mid level scrutiny for gun rights like it is a foregone conclusion.

.
if people wish to have serious commentary happen on this, they should invest a bit of their personal time to explore and understand these concepts rather than offering simply un -supported opinion
member Burzum has given this careful consideration
others need to do some research
 
#47 ·
What is the challenge to the Sullivan act Chris is speaking about? I'm sorry there are so many alleged suits I forget what's what. Apparently I'm even a part of some (they just forgot to tell me)???

What makes banning an entire class of weapons such as "aw's" apparently legit then? Especially when they are statistically less dangerous than handguns?
 
#59 ·
Chris is talking about the suit from buffalo that the state forgot to issue a permit for home defense . On other matters since DC has gone " may issue " now in their temporary law until the judge has to sign off on it . This brings up another matter about Sullivan . DC will be sued over this new law guaranteed so when the suit is successful it will drive a stake right through Sullivan , bringing NY into the " shall issues " column. This was brought to my attention today by another article stating as much that when DC loses so do all the other states that have " may issue " laws , California included along with MD , NY and most of all NJ ! Now some of Cal has gone shall issue but the major cities have refused , saying they are not going to do anything until Peruta is settled but S Diego has started issuing permits along with Yolo county so it's only a matter of time before DC,s law faces the court then we should see some action here as well . No matter what NY does after the ruling , if they refused to comply congress can do as they did before with the speed limit withhold cash ! That usually gets their attention real quick . Gura has said that he is ready to go another round to make DC comply with the judges ruling and the AG from DC has just said that by passing this temp law DC gives up the right to appeal to SCOTUS on judge Scullin,s ruling ! Now that's good news right there !
 
#48 ·
I think the issue is what does "an entire class" mean? I believe that the state would argue it to be either 'rifles' or 'semi auto rifles'. So they don't ban "an entire class" they only ban the inclussion of features (which they claim are what make these weapons particularly unacceptable) which only defines a subset of thr entire class and many other weapons in the same class are accepted if they lack these features.

Basically everyone on this board disagrees, but it is an argument.
 
#51 ·
I think the issue is what does "an entire class" mean? I believe that the state would argue it to be either 'rifles' or 'semi auto rifles'. So they don't ban "an entire class" they only ban the inclussion of features (which they claim are what make these weapons particularly unacceptable) which only defines a subset of thr entire class and many other weapons in the same class are accepted if they lack these features.

Basically everyone on this board disagrees, but it is an argument.
entirely correct ...:)
 
#54 ·
What is the challenge to the Sullivan act?
 
#55 ·
Why isn't a bigger deal made about Miller? An AR15 absolutely has purpose for service in a militia.
 
#57 ·
Let's take that thought one further- why isn't a bigger deal made about the GCA act banning machine guns? A fully-auto M-16 "PDW" absolutely has purpose for service in a militia too, does it not???
 
#61 ·
Read this- it's the 1982 Senate report on the 2A:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

A February 1982 report by a Senate subcommittee that studied the Second Amendment said:
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

The report also said that 75 percent of ATF prosecutions were "were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations." It suggested that reform of federal firearms law such as proposed in S. 1030 "would be largely self-enforcing" and "would enhance vital protection of constitutional and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun sales were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal. However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top