Illinois Supreme Court rules Cook County gun, ammunition taxes unconstitutional

[rust collector]

I did wade into the 157 page Heller decision, and you are right. That apparently was the question by the time the case came to USSC, but Heller was an armed guard who worked at the judicial center and had requested a license to carry while off duty that was denied by the DC chief of police. I am not sure how or what focused attention on the home, unless it was determined that the requirement of locking or disabling at all times in the home was the most egregious infringement, and therefore least likely to pass scrutiny.

 

[Poper]

There is a Constitutional issue on Colorado's ballot this year which is related to the Cook County decision. Colorado's Amendment 78 would require that State Agencies spend "custodial money" according to State allocation, as opposed to the individual Departments spending it directly as Departmental income.

I'm kind of ambivalent on it.

On the one hand, if County Officials (Sheriffs) won't be able to control the use of carry permit fees as "Departmental Income," they might be less "against" Constitutional Carry. This is a personal "pro" for the issue. (This has been proposed as a reason many Sheriff's Departments across the country are against Constitutional Carry.)

On the other hand, I agree with the "con" discussion in the Voting Manual for this year. In part: "The measure adds unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy and risks significant unintended consequences."

What to do, what to do?

Terry, 230RN

My default setting is "Less laws are better laws." Without a clearly written law and a clear understanding of the intent and consequences of said proposed law, I would vote my default setting: "No."

 

[patmccoy]

I sometimes wish they're used the term "abridging"" as in the First Amendment:

From Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1763:
Abridge: 2) To diminish, cut short; 3) to deprive of
Infringe: 1) to violate; 2) to destroy, hinder

I think the "hinder" in the definition of infringe is a good description of a "burden" in the court decision.

 

[230RN]

From Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1763:
Abridge: 2) To diminish, cut short; 3) to deprive of
Infringe: 1) to violate; 2) to destroy, hinder

I think the "hinder" in the definition of infringe is a good description of a "burden" in the court decision.

Well, I was also thinking of "multiple impacts." Essentially the same effect as if they'd used "infringed" in the first Amendment as well. "See, we ain't kiddin' around, here." But thanks for the backdate on the definitions. =D

And you will note, of course, that the arms clause did not appear in the first Amendment's "no abridgement" list.

It's sitting there shining all by itself... perhaps the shortest restriction of governmental power in the whole Constitution.

I guess after debate and thorough analysis of the history of governments up to that point, they really really meant what they said. Really.

"...shall not be screwed around with."

Terry, 230RN

REF (Preamble to... meaning the reasons for... the Bill of Rights):

"Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution...."
(Bolding mine.)

 

[Aim1]

That does come directly from Heller. Justice Scalia wrote something to the effect that the "core right" protected by the 2A is self-defense in the home.

BUT ... the question before the court in Heller was the right to maintain an operable firearm in the home. The Supreme Court tends to rule narrowly, so the Heller ruling only addressed the RKBA in the home. The problem is that anti-gun lower courts now like to claim that "Heller says" the RKBA only applies in the home -- which is not at all what Heller said.

Hopefully the guns outside the home issue will be cleaned up around June 2022 withNew York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

 

[230RN]

Check me on this, but I thought the "in the home" parameter came from the lower Court's proceedings, so that's what they decisioneered on.

 

[230RN]

Raw Opinion:

Aguila Blanca said,

"BUT ... the question before the court in Heller was the right to maintain an operable firearm in the home. The Supreme Court tends to rule narrowly, so the Heller ruling only addressed the RKBA in the home."

Alan Gura, the attorney for "Heller" realized SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of the United States) seemed to look for any excuse not to take a 2A case and tailored the Heller complaint to "fit" the parameters so that SCOTUS could not refuse. This included the "in the home" issue.

So Gura set things up so that SCOTUS would not find a reason to deny cert (see REF). (Gura, by the way, was not a"gunny," but was merely concerned with the protection of fundamental civil rights, such as 2A.)

Feel free to correct my recollections above.

I have to laugh when some people proclaim "I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court," not realizing that the whole process is loaded with impediments to "bothering" them, including the granting of "cert." Oh, and the dollars involved. The many, many dollars involved.

Justice costs.

Our My heroes:

Dick Anthony Heller



Alan Gura



Pic credits in properties

Respectfully submitted,

Terry, 230RN

REF ("Cert"):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari

United States Supreme Court
Certiorari is most commonly associated with the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to review a lower court's judgment. A case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, a party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari.

(In other words, you request review in the form of a request for certiorari, hoping the Court will grant it. --230RN)

In the Supreme Court, if four Justices agree to review the case, then the Court will hear the case. This is referred to as "granting certiorari," often abbreviated as "cert." If four Justices do not agree to review the case, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari.

 

[CherokeeGunslinger]

That does come directly from Heller. Justice Scalia wrote something to the effect that the "core right" protected by the 2A is self-defense in the home.

BUT ... the question before the court in Heller was the right to maintain an operable firearm in the home. The Supreme Court tends to rule narrowly, so the Heller ruling only addressed the RKBA in the home. The problem is that anti-gun lower courts now like to claim that "Heller says" the RKBA only applies in the home -- which is not at all what Heller said.

Which is why they took up Bruen. We're gonna watch them make the anti-gunners cry again