Supreme Court leaves Illinois assault weapons ban in place

[VietnamEraVet]

Well, hot off the press. SCOTUS today declined to intervene in the Illinois / City of Naperville, IL "assault weapons ban" cases.

Absolutely fucking worthless!

I am certain we can expect even more states to pass anti 2A laws. We will be fighting to get our rights respected for YEARS, or until SCOTUS is overturned. Funny, how the anti 2A Senator from Connecticut publicly came out and essentially threatened SCOTUS, and POOF, SCOTUS folds.

Supreme Court leaves Illinois assault weapons ban in place

The Supreme Court declined to immediately block Illinois’s assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans, leaving them in place, for now. A gun rights group and gun shop owner asked the justices …

thehill.com

Dem Chris Murphy predicts ‘popular revolt’ if SCOTUS blocks gun proposals

Murphy, who was a lead negotiator in last year’s landmark bipartisan safety bill, said judicial action threatened to derail the “progress” lawmakers have made in regulating firear…

nypost.com

 

[Saltwater60]

I came to post this bad news and you beat me to it. What a joke.

 

[GOYABEAN]

Guns are bad especially when they would be used to stop a tyrannical government

 

[Zerex]

I fully expected this, as the lower Fed appeals court , is very next in line, procedurally, to handle the "hot potato"... IN LIGHT OF BRUEN and it has not heard the appeal yet...till June.

As Scotus said, this was just a "procedural" move.......allowing the lower appeals court to fuck it up, and uphold the totally unconstitutional ban, that is a copy of the NYS Safe Act......... , and then get to SCOTUS on appeal.......................the Illinois district appeals court may drag its heels, like the NYS 2nd Circuit is doing, ignoring Bruen..but the day is coming boys............SCOTUS has done the same thing recently in regards to a few NYS cases that have yet to be heard by the 2nd Circuit court of assholes nad LBGTQ llovers....SCOTUS is waiting for the big case and it is Illinois for sure.

SCOTUS is forcing the lower courts to heel to its rulings................... the way it is supposed to work, before dropping the hammer on their faulty decisions, like on Bruen again.

It ain't 2013 anymore, Dorothy, and the gun owning maniacs' Lawyers, are at the doors of the Courts, with competent Counsel..........NYS's Safe act is on its last legs, in the BOR's nursing home for communists, soggy pancakes, not withstanding.

 

[turbobike]

Call me skeptic, but I think some of you'all have too faith in SCOTUS....10 years on and unSAFE 1 is still on the books...

 

[Jmac00]

this bullshit. This is essentially the Grandparents saying, "take this kid home and straighten him/her out. And if you can't do that in the next 5 years, bring him/her back and we'll rehash this shit, and MAYBE we'll tell you what to do"

 

[SomeSoldier]

Disband.

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

If there was a way to keep it pure, I would probably be in favor of a 'Constitutional A.I.' taking the place of the justices.

 

[prambo]

Call me skeptic, but I think some of you'all have too faith in SCOTUS....10 years on and unSAFE 1 is still on the books...

Agreed - absolutely.

Other than Thomas, SCROTUM isn't just NOT our friend...they are the enemy.

Pro Tip: SCROTUM is part of fUSA.Gov, thus,. corrupt by its very existence.

 

[Zerex]

You can't leapfrog the courts chain of command...........SCOTUS sympathized, but hearing the case on the merits of the cases unconstitutional ban is what we want...not some injunction, that still has to be litigated at that next lower court level.

 

[RedBreast21]

I've been reading SCOTUS decisions for decades now. Nothing new here. SCOTUS doesn't like to step in on lower courts processes until they have ruled.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I've been reading SCOTUS decisions for decades now. Nothing new here. SCOTUS doesn't like to step in on lower courts processes until they have ruled.

What is wrong with that, is that even in the face of an utterly obvious violation of the Bruen ruling, gun owners have to deal with this denial of their rights while this crap winds through the court system. And justice delayed IS justice denied.

The right thing to do would have been to issue an injunction, on the basis that the plaintiff's were likely to prevail. Then, SCOTUS could have allowed this to continue thru the courts while gun owners rights were NOT infringed.

It's shitty. And then some.

 

[RedBreast21]

What is wrong with that, is that even in the face of an utterly obvious violation of the Bruen ruling, gun owners have to deal with this denial of their rights while this crap winds through the court system. And justice delayed IS justice denied.

The right thing to do would have been to issue an injunction, on the basis that the plaintiff's were likely to prevail. Then, SCOTUS could have allowed this to continue thru the courts while gun owners rights were NOT infringed.

It's shitty. And then some.

I completely understand your feelings but the court has always respected the fact that a State passed a law through a majority of the legislature and thereby the people. State elections are one of the pure democracy model and not an electoral process which is giving equal weight to smaller county population in the state.

The court also respects the process that all cases of this manner has taken in the past and always gives the lower courts a chance to rule.

Believe me, when our side is the majority in a state, we will want the same. Skipping the lower courts would be a big problem. Remember SCOTUS fast tracks cases when there is circuit court conflict on similar constitutional cases. Skipping the lower court in this cases removes that legal precedent.

Having a stacked SCOTUS against us would be horrible and them acting in a manner which you expect this court to. If they stepped in on every RED state law passed and over ruled cases before lower courts, or a circuit court conflict, that would eliminate process and create the already building of a totalitarianism government we see today.

Be careful what you wish for. Our side doesn't need to set precedent.

I know the SCOTUS has seen the political pressure increase to levels never experience in the history of the court. But let the Constitution be the guide we follow and not the one we sometimes follow for expediency.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I completely understand your feelings but the court has always respected the fact that a State passed a law through a majority of the legislature and thereby the people. State elections are one of the pure democracy model and not an electoral process which is giving equal weight to smaller county population in the state.

The court also respects the process that all cases of this manner has taken in the past and always gives the lower courts a chance to rule.

Believe me, when our side is the majority in a state, we will want the same. Skipping the lower courts would be a big problem. Remember SCOTUS fast tracks cases when their is circuit court conflict on similar constitutional cases. Skipping the lower courts removes that legal precedent.

Having a stacked SCOTUS against us would be horrible and acting in a manner which you expect this court to. If they stepped in on every RED state law passed and over ruled cases before lower courts, or a circuit court conflict, that would eliminate process and create the already building of a totalitarianism government we see today.

Be careful what you wish for. Our side doesn't need to set precedent.

I know the SCOTUS has seen the political pressure increase to levels never experience in the history of the court. But let the Constitution be the guide we follow and not the one we sometimes follow for expediency.

I respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Acer-m14]

WOW!!!

Conflict of interest concerns of Illinois Supreme Court remain in challenge of Illinois' gun ban​

"Bishop shares comments from attorney Jerry Stocks, who is representing state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur, in the case challenging Illinois' gun ban, about the continued concerns of judicial integrity as two Illinois Supreme Court justices accepted $1 million each to their campaign funds from case defendant Gov. J.B. Pritzker."

2 min mark then the Court judge speaks and get a Answer

 

[VietnamEraVet]

WOW!!!

Conflict of interest concerns of Illinois Supreme Court remain in challenge of Illinois' gun ban​

"Bishop shares comments from attorney Jerry Stocks, who is representing state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur, in the case challenging Illinois' gun ban, about the continued concerns of judicial integrity as two Illinois Supreme Court justices accepted $1 million each to their campaign funds from case defendant Gov. J.B. Pritzker."

2 min mark then the Court judge speaks and get a Answer

Yep, and even more corruption, - or at the absolute least, the appearance of it! I have personally seen my share of it in my lifetime, and I cannot express my full disgust over it for obvious reasons.

This sucks. Because absolutely NOTHING will be done about it. Bought and fucking paid for.

 

[Criticalt]

Y'all need to settle down.
If the 7th circuit screws this up, the SCOTUS will fix it.
Them intervening now would cause more issues in the future.
Doing it the correct way will seal the deal in the end.
There are a couple good youtube videos of qualified lawyers explaining this.

 

[Zerex]

If SCOTUS upheld the injunction, by saying that the injunction was likely to prevail at SCOTUS...Schumer nad scum would be shouting from the rooftops about chain of command being ignored.........and to pack the court today.

The corrupted lower court will have to eat the plate of shit the legislature passed, and uphold the injunction on the merits, or watch SCOTUS disembowl them, like they did to Hocul, and the 2nd District Fed Ct.

This is rich political theatre, and it is not like it is not par for the course....like the Hughes Amendment bs.
Embarrassment, humiliation and outrage at the US Consitution, is just great for raising the stroke level of the CCP communist scum.