1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Illinois Supreme Court ruling deals major blow to anti-gunners

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Desertdog, Nov 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Desertdog

    Desertdog Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Ridgecrest Ca
    Illinois Supreme Court ruling deals major blow to anti-gunners
    By Dave Workman
    November 23, 2004

    Ruling unanimously Nov. 18 on two lawsuits that had been filed against the firearms industry - one by the City of Chicago and Cook County , the other by five individual plaintiffs - the Illinois Supreme Court not only tossed out both cases, but dealt a serious blow to the gun control crowd.

    It cannot have been a worse month for hard core disciples of gun control extremism, in Illinois and elsewhere. Their definition of sensible firearms law, short of repealing the Second Amendment, is to regulate gun ownership out of existence. Gun owners turned out in record numbers to keep George Bush in the White House, and then the Illinois high court rendered two painful opinions.
    From a liberal court in a very Blue state came yet another ruling that gun makers, distributors and retailers are not responsible for the criminal acts of people who commit crimes with guns they obtained through illegal means. That position is virtually the same as courts have taken in 17 similar politically motivated lawsuits. In this case, there's a biting admission that the Brady bunch hopes most people overlook.

    Buried within the language of Justice Rita Garman's 65-page opinion in Young v. Bryco and Chicago v. Beretta is a myth-busting observation around which gun control extremists will not be able to dance. Wrote Garman, in Young: "Both the manufacturer and dealer defendants are engaged in businesses that are highly regulated by state and federal law." She used similar language in Chicago .

    So much for the frequent allegation by gun control fanatics that the manufacture of teddy bears is more regulated than the gun industry. There are, as Garman notes, numerous state and federal laws and regulations governing the firearms industry. This does not even touch the thousands of local, state and federal laws regarding possession and use of firearms, for which Justice Garman also had a few remarks.

    In the Young ruling, Garman points out that Illinois "state law prohibits minors from owning firearms," and "municipal ordinances generally prohibit possession of handguns within the City of Chicago ."

    "Nevertheless," Garman writes, "numerous violent crimes are committed each year in the City of Chicago by juveniles armed with illegal weapons."

    Translation: A myriad of laws do not prevent criminal acts. Juvenile criminals are still criminals, and the existence of an ordinance forbidding honest citizens - upon whom these thugs routinely prey - from owning or carrying firearms for their own defense is not going to stop punk felons from using guns in crimes. Neither will suing gun makers into bankruptcy.

    Just one day before the Illinois Supreme Court rulings were handed down, the Illinois House of Representatives voted 85-30 to override Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of SB 2165, which would protect citizens from local anti-gun ordinances if they use a firearm to defend themselves or their families. The legislation was inspired by the case of Wilmette resident Hale DeMar, who shot a burglar in his home with a handgun, despite a 15-year-old handgun ban in that Chicago suburb. One week earlier the Senate also voted 40-18 to override the governor.

    In case Gov. Blagojevich or Chicago Mayor Richard Daley haven't grasped it yet, they are seriously out of touch - with the citizens, the legislature, the courts, and reality. Daley told the Associated Press that the court ruling was "disheartening." That's how politicians usually describe being creamed.

    In the final analysis, what happened in Illinois is reflective of what has already happened elsewhere around the nation. Apparently, it just takes a little longer for the Left to grasp it in the Land of Lincoln . Judges are following the law, and avoiding the temptation to legislate from the bench. Legislatures are responding - albeit with very small steps in Illinois - to constituents who demand that their right of self-defense be held sacrosanct. Forty-six states have some form of concealed carry law on the books, and Illinois is one of the four remaining holdouts.

    The Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Legislature have both chalked up wins for common sense. In the process, they have further eroded the ability of gun control proponents to demagogue their values onto the backs of law-abiding citizens and legitimate businesses. As the Brady crowd is fond of saying, that's a "good first step."

    Dave Workman is the senior editor of Gun Week, a national firearms publication owned by the Second Amendment Foundation.
  2. reagansquad

    reagansquad Member

    Aug 7, 2004
    activist judges rewriting the constitution.

  3. X-out

    X-out Member

    May 5, 2004
    This is what the article said: "The Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Legislature have both chalked up wins for common sense. In the process, they have further eroded the ability of gun control proponents to demagogue their values onto the backs of law-abiding citizens and legitimate businesses."

    Here's the complete, and so far only, comment: "activist judges rewriting the constitution."

    If legal theories like the one proposed in this case were to prevail, even those citizens in states that support the 2d Amendment will lose their ability to buy ammo or weapons because of the "litigation effect" on dealers, manufactures, and the insurance industry. (I know thinking is a chore, but try to think of it this way--diving boards are still "legal," but does your local swimming pool still offer a high dive?) This was a major win and a very well done opinion by a unanimous opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court that will force most other states to adopt a position against these suits, which a few other states have already allowed. Those Illinois judges are on our side, Bucko! This comment about "activist judges," by a Senior Member of the forum no less, goes to show the real enemy most gunowners face in this political battle: that deadly combination of preconceived notions and ignorance. Good god man, these judge have ruled in your favor and still you insult them! No wonder such government officials generally have so little sympathy for our rights.

    Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Constitution isn't really written in stone. All governance is a process of compromise, and with inane views like this, I can only wish those of you who feel this way the best of luck with preserving your rights against the majority in the future. You're going to need it.

    Reagansquad, as a Life Member of the GOA and a life-long gun owner who is in contact with government officials trying to convince them of the gunowners' position, I must say that, with views like yours, who needs enemies? And I'm sure I'm wasting my time saying this, but not every case that involves guns raises constitutional issues (this was a common-law tort case asserting claims of negligence). Didn't even read the court's opinion, did you?

    I used to post here a bit, but this is why I started feeling it was a complete waste of time, and mainly just check in now and then for tibbits of news from other states. But before I get too depressed with the stupidity of posts like this, I'm calling it a day and moving on to high grounds.

    Yes, I know, good riddance.

    X X-out
  4. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Dec 24, 2002
    The comment was humor. You'd find life easier should you acquire an ability to recognize such.

    Meanwhile yes, the Constitution and BoR are written in stone. A chisel with which to alter that writing was provided in the Amendment process. It requires time, determination and skill to use that tool exactly in order to eliminate the idea of "compromise".

    So as they say, don't let the door...
  5. Augustwest

    Augustwest Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Southern New England
    I kinda thought the winking smiley gave it away...

    Nice to see a sensible ruling once in awhile.
  6. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    That process is well along in several states. Truth to tell, I don't understand why the leftist extremists haven't yet started screeching for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Just because it would fail doesn't mean they couldn't and/or wouldn't try it.
  7. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Oct 23, 2004
    much as i'd like to believe otherwise, it appears Dave Workman is irrationally exhuberant. obviously, we all agree with the ruling. heck, it was unanimous, according to the article.

    the problem is, the left doesn't have to WIN their cases to drive firearms companies out of business. the act of defending the case, even without a judgement, is enough to drive many out of business.

    winning this ONE case means almost nothing. as the article stated, the ruling is the same as SEVENTEEN previous rulings in similar cases.

    that means, this ruling won't stop the left from finding sympathetic lower courts and bringing more lawsuits. it won't stop them from pulling another totally incoherent argument out of their bung and abusing the court system.

    litigation is like war: neither side really wins. i'll grant you though, that it sucks less for us than it does for them though.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page