Kimber Talk Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If there are IL residents that want to join me in the lawsuit against Pritzker and the Assault Weapons ban, the cost is only $200. Open the following link on a computer. For some reason the CC number field isn't showing on my IPhone. I called their office and let them know.


This attorney has a proven record with fighting against Pritzker's mask mandates in school here in IL. Join me as a names plaintiff and help fight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
If there are IL residents...
If I was still a resident I'd be in it. Hopefully, a judge will find passage of this act so egregious, considering rulings already on the books, that the state will pick up attorney's fees for the plaintiffs. It's probably too much to hope for that Illinois residents will come to their senses and vote the dems out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,705 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
"The order would only apply to the more than the 850 defendants in the case."

Wait.. what? 😞
The TRO only applies to the plaintiffs. That’s unfortunately, normal. If we intimately win the case, at the end it will apply to everyone in the state. That’s why I posted it for other IL residents to join. Not a plaintiff, you are still subject to the law.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,705 Posts
The TRO only applies to the plaintiffs. That’s unfortunately, normal. If we intimately win the case, at the end it will apply to everyone in the state. That’s why I posted it for other IL residents to join. Not a plaintiff, you are still subject to the law.
That's because the ruling is based on the argument, which states the law creates an unequal protected class with the LEO exemption.
It absolutely does, but that's a odd angle to argue.
The ruling is also odd, because it ironically creates a protected class as well.

It also seems to dance around the recent USSC rulings and Justice Thomas's opinions on text and history in the Bruen ruling.🤨
I am also not a lawyer.

A win is a win I guess and if it gets the law struck then that's awesome.
👍
 

· Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
That's because the ruling is based on the argument, which states the law creates an unequal protected class with the LEO exemption.
It absolutely does, but that's a odd angle to argue.
The ruling is also odd, because it ironically creates a protected class as well.

It also seems to dance around the recent USSC rulings and Justice Thomas's opinions on text and history in the Bruen ruling.🤨
I am also not a lawyer.

A win is a win I guess and if it gets the law struck then that's awesome.
👍
It’s more complicated than that. In order to have standing, we have to show an injury. Otherwise, there would be no case because it would be thrown out. The motion says we intend to do all of the things the law bans. Because the law prevents us from doing that without risk of arrest and imprisonment, it is therefore causing injury. Because of that, the ruling on the TRO can only apply to those within the complaint.

In other words, only those who have officially stated in the complaint that they intend to break the law can seek relief. At least that how I understand it. Recently a 2A challenge at the Fed level was thrown out because of this very thing. The judge wrote in his opinion that he believed the law challenged to be unconstitutional but he couldn’t allow it to continue because no one stated they intended to break the law…. It’s screwed up, I know.

This case doesn’t even challenge the 2A infringement so Bruen doesn’t apply. That will happen if this fails. This case challenges the method used to get it passed. In other words, they broke a bunch of procedural laws to create this law. In addition, this law also creates a special class of citizens, which violates the constitution of IL.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,705 Posts
It’s more complicated than that. In order to have standing, we have to show an injury. Otherwise, there would be no case because it would be thrown out. The motion says we intend to do all of the things the law bans. Because the law prevents us from doing that without risk of arrest and imprisonment, it is therefore causing injury. Because of that, the ruling on the TRO can only apply to those within the complaint.

In other words, only those who have officially stated in the complaint that they intend to break the law can seek relief. At least that how I understand it. Recently a 2A challenge at the Fed level was thrown out because of this very thing. The judge wrote in his opinion that he believed the law challenged to be unconstitutional but he couldn’t allow it to continue because no one stated they intended to break the law…. It’s screwed up, I know.

This case doesn’t even challenge the 2A infringement so Bruen doesn’t apply. That will happen if this fails. This case challenges the method used to get it passed. In other words, they broke a bunch of procedural laws to create this law. In addition, this law also creates a special class of citizens, which violates the constitution of IL.
I understand the need to show standing/injury, and just think that's a unique strategy, as every unconstitutionally infringed citizen clearly has standing/injury as well.

The terms of the TRO seem to exclude large swath of citizens who by definition, are not protected under the TRO, that was apparently issued due to a large swath of citizens being unprotected under the AWB.

The judge granting unequal protection under the law for those challenging unequal protection under the law part is what is odd.


I hope it works out.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
I understand the need to show standing/injury, and just think that's a unique strategy, as every unconstitutionally infringed citizen clearly has standing/injury as well.

The terms of the TRO seem to exclude large swath of citizens who by definition, are not protected under the TRO, that was apparently issued due to a large swath of citizens being unprotected under the AWB.

The judge granting unequal protection under the law for those challenging unequal protection under the law part is what is odd.


I hope it works out.
I don’t think anyone should have to show standing when the constitutionality of a law is in question, but I don’t make the rules.

I further agree that the logic is flawed.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top