from their real problems ... which is failing cities and states.
(Thought I'd finish that thought for you.)
Chicago vows to prosecute IL CCW Holders
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
from their real problems ... which is failing cities and states.
(Thought I'd finish that thought for you.)
Onward Allusion
Member
Hehe... I really hope these idiots don't comply and ignore the ruling. Can you say Constitutional Carry?
The real problem is that these corrupt government officials refuse to attack the root causes of crime, mainly because they're criminals themelves. It's easier and cheaper to enact more gun laws that only affect citizens who aren't commiting any crimes to begin with.
Klusterbuck
Member
I wanna know if there is a problem with pigeons poopin on this statue he speaks of........
and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which opposed the Alien and Sedition acts
and during the War of 1812 when New England states refused to contribute to the war and even started talking about seceding.
and the nullification crisis of 1832 when Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops into South Carolina
and during the Civil War when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in Maryland
Warners
Member
I'll be there, Trent.....just got a call from Don at ISRA last night with my bus confirmation code. Trying to get my all-talk/no action gun friends to go....but you know how that goes.
Warner
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Everyone hemming and hawing about them ignoring the Supreme Court might be in for a rude awakening in a few years. Wait until Comrade President puts in another Justice or two and then a few more gun control cases go against us. Will we then be so adamant about states following SCOTUS rulings?
I am not wild about following them now. I don't think 1 body, particularly an un-elected body which has no term limit, should have the last say concerning the Constitutional rights of Americans....stinks too much of oligarchy.
Deer_Freak
Member.
The thing about the whole deal is most states have a limit that one can receive in a civil suit against any government entity including the police. The city of Chicago knows they will only pay a few civil cases they maximum limit the state allows. Wheeling WV is doing the same thing for open carry. The only successful suit against Wheeling was brought about by a plaintiff that is an attorney. Chicago will use the courts to their advantage to play the same game.
traderpats
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
- Messages
- 45
Everyone hemming and hawing about them ignoring the Supreme Court might be in for a rude awakening in a few years. Wait until Comrade President puts in another Justice or two and then a few more gun control cases go against us. Will we then be so adamant about states following SCOTUS rulings?
SCOTUS goes rogue? Meh, against all enemies both foreign AND domestic. Just sayin.....
SCOTUS goes rogue? Meh, against all enemies both foreign AND domestic. Just sayin.....
If a cop arrests you in violation of your federal constitutional rights, you sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Every person who . . . subjects . . . any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . ."). You bring this suit in federal court, and there are no limits on damages.Deer_Freak said:
It's also worth noting that this is why the City of Chicago's position is wrong. The first time Chicago arrests someone, a § 1983 suit will be brought. The plaintiff will ask for money and an injunction barring the City from arresting people for carrying guns. The federal court that hears this suit will be bound by the 7th Circuit's opinion. There are some other issues involved in § 1983 suits besides whether your rights were violated (and some issues of whether the plaintiff would be allowed to ask for the injunction), but Chicago is bound in federal court by the 7th Circuit's opinion just as much as they would be by the Supreme Court's opinion.
As to what would happen if you raised your 2nd Amendment claim in Illinois state court, well, why would you do that? (In practice, they can do whatever they want and appeal from the Supreme Court of Illinois can only be heard by the United States Supreme Court.)
Deanimator
Member
When the city is sued and loses, it won't be THEIR money.
It'll be the tax money of the drooling simpletons who keep electing them... those of them that actually PAY taxes, anyway.
The only question is whether the Chicago cops will be dumb enough to actually pierce their own qualified immunity.
When Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson ordered Cleveland police to illegally enforce a state preempted "assault weapon" ban, the Cleveland police union advised its members to ignore the order lest they be sued and found civilly liable.
Of course the Chicago lodge of the FOP is notorious for having gone on National Public Radio in 1996 and demanding that those convicted of domestic violence be allowed to carry guns... but only if they're cops. Critical thinking isn't one of their strong suits...
It'll be the tax money of the drooling simpletons who keep electing them... those of them that actually PAY taxes, anyway.
The only question is whether the Chicago cops will be dumb enough to actually pierce their own qualified immunity.
When Cleveland mayor Frank Jackson ordered Cleveland police to illegally enforce a state preempted "assault weapon" ban, the Cleveland police union advised its members to ignore the order lest they be sued and found civilly liable.
Of course the Chicago lodge of the FOP is notorious for having gone on National Public Radio in 1996 and demanding that those convicted of domestic violence be allowed to carry guns... but only if they're cops. Critical thinking isn't one of their strong suits...
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
Clearly you don't follow Chicago legal matters.
Does "McDonald vs. Chicago" ring a bell?
Of course Chicago already regularly shells out literally MILLIONS of dollars in police misconduct cases.
The last time they rolled the civil court dice, they ended up with a JUDICIAL FINDING that the Chicago PD is corrupt and maintains a "blue wall of silence". That one really left a mark.
They AREN'T, but if they were smart, they'd shut up and go back to stealing what little is left to steal in Chicago...
In the pix that bushmaster posted, don't know who-all is in first pic, second pic is then-Gov. Orval Faubus, {unless I am grosly mistaken} who activated the Arkansas National Guard to prevent those students from entering Little Rock Central High School, in 1957 or so.
We have come to expect this type of malfeasance from Chicago's ultra-corrupt politicians. Hey, they don't call it Crook County for nothing!
I'm no expert but I think a few hundred Section 1983 suits against the corrupt cops and city council members should do the job. We were warned about this many times over the years, told that we could be held personally liable, civilly and criminally, if we violated anybody's civil rights, even if we were in full compliance with state laws.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
I'm no expert but I think a few hundred Section 1983 suits against the corrupt cops and city council members should do the job. We were warned about this many times over the years, told that we could be held personally liable, civilly and criminally, if we violated anybody's civil rights, even if we were in full compliance with state laws.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
- Status
Similar threads
