Even though it's Illinois the comments the Federal Judge made, if upheld, could apply to other states that are or might in the future try the same thing.
(hopefully Ohio will never try that nonsense but you can never predict future politics )
The comments the Judge made in granting the temporary injunction had a lot of common sense in it, so even if he later rules against it his decision will probably be overturned by the circuit court.
I mentioned this news item to a anti gun relative of mine just to hear her reaction, and her comments were "What do you expect from a racist Trump appointee?" It is true that he was nominated by Trump, but racist? She couldn't give me a specific example of why he was racist, other than she mentioned he was white and male and a Republican. She also claims that he should have recused himself from even hearing the case because he is a member of the NRA, which might explain why he is more knowledgeable about firearms than the lead attorney for the state. I looked it up and could only find a site that said he used to me a member of the NRA and the Illinois rifle and pistol association, but the state membership ended in 2013. I couldn't find what his current NRA status is.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/27/a- ... -firearms/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAY6MrL_5I
IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- Posts: 4782
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
-
- Posts: 16229
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
- Location: SW Ohio
Re: IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
That sounds like a relative I wouldn't talk to, if she was part of my family.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
- Location: South of I-70
-
- Posts: 4782
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
I don't do a lot of talking to her. Even if I wanted to, it would be hard to get a word in edgewise sometimes, she does enough talking for multiple people.
She is a member of Moms demand action and a couple of other anti gun organizations, plus she is a far left Democrat, and volunteers for the DNC
which she has the time to do that with your Union position.
Despite all this I still listen to some of the stuff she spouts forth, and occasionally call her on a few things, just to see her reaction. I don't do it because I'm under any illusion that I'm going to change her mind on anything, it's mostly because it's interesting to hear what the other side says. If someone happens to be listening and their mind is not already made up on a particular issue, I want to represent the logical reasonable alternative opinion.
-
- Posts: 4782
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
Update: I don't have a link yet, heard it on the radio, but the request by Illinois to stay the temporary injunction has been stayed by a judge on the appeals court, so the IL ban is back on, and probably will be until and unless the case gets to SCOTUS.
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
- Location: South of I-70
Re: IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
But that doesn't negate those two district court judges from explaining themselves before Amy Coney Barrett Monday.
-
- Posts: 4782
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
- Location: South of I-70
Re: IL AW ban temp injunction granted and Judge mentions pistol braces also
The Supreme Court has inherent authority to punish by contempt for disobedience of the courts rulings and sanction for that misconduct. The lower court ruled contrary to the holdings of Heller and Bruen. The Bruen court ordered the lower courts to stop ignoring the high court mandates. And these two judges defied the higher courts orders. Not smart.M-Quigley wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 6:27 amI will admit IDK this works in this case. If she doesn't like the explanation, is there anything she can do about it?