Illinois Federal Court

[Fedempl]

According to our friends at the NRA-ILA our under-educated Federal Judges in Illinois just do not understand the 2nd Amendnment nor can they understand prior Federal Court decisions including the Supreme Court....

NRA-ILA | NRA Will Appeal Decision Denying Right to Carry Outside the Home

 

[Quad]

Illinois is certainly proving to be a tough one to crack. Hopefully with the seemingly growing 2nd amendment support there it won't be long before the laws are changed through the state legislature, and the NRA won't have to pursue this all the way to the SCOTUS. However, I really can't see the SCOTUS agreeing to hear this case either. They seem to want to let their past decisions, albeit rather vague in some cases, to stand for every pro gun case brought to them.

 

[Mgderf]

According to our friends at the NRA-ILA our under-educated Federal Judges in Illinois just do not understand the 2nd Amendnment nor can they understand prior Federal Court decisions including the Supreme Court....

NRA-ILA | NRA Will Appeal Decision Denying Right to Carry Outside the Home

It's not that they don't understand the concept of the 2nd amendment. The Illinois political machine simply refuses to accept it. It's a completely different ideology (and completely flawed in my opinion) that the government supply all the protection John Q. Public requires.

They understand what the normal, law abiding citizen wants. They just don't want to let us exercize that much liberty.

All "rights" provided by the government, can be recinded by the government.

Sounds like there's a song in there. Anyone remember the 1970's rock band named Bread? A little diddy titled "This isn't what the Government..." is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"Bread? But I just heard them on the King Biscuit Flour Hour." H.J. Simpson.

Everyone relax. It is federal disctrict court, not a judge in the Daley Center.

No way a federal district judge is going to run off and rule on something the Supreme Court has not yet done so.

See what happens in the 7th Circuit.

 

[KG1]

They are a bunch of dingleberries in Illinois

I say this is a quality post.

 

[Bill B]

They are a bunch of dingleberries in Illinois

I say this is a quality post.

I second the motion, all in favor?

 

[jve153]

I second the motion, all in favor?

aye

 

[chevy46514]

My post vanished... Hmmm.

 

[chevy46514]

In all seriousness, it's obvious that Illinois government does not or refuses to understand the constitution. This is apparent by the occupants of the senate and white house. Especially by their call of "judicial activism" to make the SCOTUS seem radical. They don't understand what the constitution is about. I think it's a choice they made to be ignorant.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I say this is a quality post.

I second the motion, all in favor?

Sorry, no...

Is this a good thing? I'm new and got a reputation comment for it... What's that mean

If it really was a "quality post", that being one that adds to the discussion rather than a "one-liner" that only serves to pad someone's post count, yes, it would be a good thing.

While it may not have been your intent to post one-liners, it's a common thing we see here, especially amongst new members.

To use your above post as an example, you might think that IL is full of dingleberries, and you'll find many members here who will agree with you on that point, however, if you expand on why you think so and perhaps make a suggestion or two of how to fix the problem, (preferably solutions that do not include the possibly-suitable but very illegal (not to mention, not-allowed-to-be-discussed-here) use of high explosives) the post quickly goes from "one-liner" to being discussion-enhancing, and thus, quality.

What we're looking for in "quality posts" is something to let people know a little more about you than just a screen name. Why? From the early days of this board, we've tried to maintain a "family" feel, that we're a community, not just another gunbroker-type site. That's kinda hard to do when your membership is the size of a small city, but we still hold it as an ideal, and our members are the beneficiaries of it.

I didn't (and don't plan to) delete your "Welcome" thread. I did remove a few of your one-liners, though. Don't let that discourage you. Try again, with a little more "meat" to the posts (and no, despite the ever-present theme here, I do NOT mean to just post pictures of bacon! ) and I'm sure you'll be past that 50-post level in no time.

In all seriousness, it's obvious that Illinois government does not or refuses to understand the constitution. This is apparent by the occupants of the senate and white house. Especially by their call of "judicial activism" to make the SCOTUS seem radical. They don't understand what the constitution is about. I think it's a choice they made to be ignorant.

Edit: Case in point! Good job here!

Good luck!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chevy46514]

Oh. I apologize. I was in class (I'm a father trying to get an education for my family) at Purdue. Sorry IU fans! That's why they were short. And sorry to detract from the thread with this comment.

Back to the Illinois deficiency. One more example is the ridiculous sham run by Eric Holder, called "Fast and Furious"

 

[Mike H]

IMO Illannoys judges know the Constitution. Obama knows the Constitution. They have simply been able to violate it for so long that they want to perpetuate that forever.
Their day will come......but not soon enough.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Oh. I apologize. I was in class (I'm a father trying to get an education for my family) at Purdue. Sorry IU fans! That's why they were short. And sorry to detract from the thread with this comment.

Back to the Illinois deficiency. One more example is the ridiculous sham run by Eric Holder, called "Fast and Furious"

No sweat, and you're not detracting. Every community has a few things to get used to; when I started here, I think it was a month before I actually posted... Of course, back then, you could PM even before you posted your first message. I do have it on good authority that I am not the reason it changed, however.

On topic: What do you think the IL SC will do when presented a challenge to the state law or Chicago's city ordinances in view of the SCOTUS McDonald decision?

BTW, good on you for going back for more education! May be doing that myself soon.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

No sweat, and you're not detracting. Every community has a few things to get used to; when I started here, I think it was a month before I actually posted... Of course, back then, you could PM even before you posted your first message. I do have it on good authority that I am not the reason it changed, however.

On topic: What do you think the IL SC will do when presented a challenge to the state law or Chicago's city ordinances in view of the SCOTUS McDonald decision?

BTW, good on you for going back for more education! May be doing that myself soon.

Blessings,
Bill

There is no telling what those nutjobs over there will do.

Bill, I cannot imagine you needing further education, you are the smartest person I know and always have the best posts
Use purple where needed

 

[Grelber]

It is not Illinois, it is Chicago. Population density of Cook county in combination with an ancient and famously corrupt political machine keeps all of the power in a tiny geographical area. If you look at blue versus red counties in Illinois in the last presidential election you get an idea of what is happening in the state.
Push Chicago into the great lakes and Illinois would be a great place to live, or a different way to put it, Illinois is just like Indiana except with a giant festered sore on its nethers.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is not Illinois, it is Chicago.

It is not Chicago. The court is in the Southern District of Illinois. Illinois is composed of three federal districts, Northern, Central and Southern.

As well, this is a federal court, not a state court.

Again district courts will always be relunctant to "break new ground". This ruling was anticipated and necessary to get to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. Illinois has a flat out prohibition and is most ripe for SCOTUS review.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

On topic: What do you think the IL SC will do when presented a challenge to the state law or Chicago's city ordinances in view of the SCOTUS McDonald decision?

That was answered yesterday.

 

[rugertoter]

Illinois is certainly proving to be a tough one to crack. Hopefully with the seemingly growing 2nd amendment support there it won't be long before the laws are changed through the state legislature, and the NRA won't have to pursue this all the way to the SCOTUS. However, I really can't see the SCOTUS agreeing to hear this case either. They seem to want to let their past decisions, albeit rather vague in some cases, to stand for every pro gun case brought to them.

I agree with you on the SCOTUS ruling concerning the 2nd amendment, but I bet they would bring it up a second time IF they had a Liberal majority.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Illinois is certainly proving to be a tough one to crack. Hopefully with the seemingly growing 2nd amendment support there it won't be long before the laws are changed through the state legislature, and the NRA won't have to pursue this all the way to the SCOTUS

We need Illinois to be unreasonable. We need flat out prohibitions in order to provide the perfect defendant and plaintiff.

Illinois is our anvil of victory. We will pound on them over and over until we win.

 

[Grelber]

"It is not Chicago. The court is in the Southern District of Illinois. Illinois is composed of three federal districts, Northern, Central and Southern."

I think the Chicago political machine has reasonably long arms.
If you believe that the people of Southern Illinois have different 2nd amendment beliefs than those of southern Indiana (for example) then your experience with folks from both states is very different than my own.