The Gun Counter

Thanks to JB Pritzker, Illinois is going to see how much Bruen costs the state in legal fees.

SoupOrMan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:48 am Thanks to JB Pritzker, Illinois is going to see how much Bruen costs the state in legal fees.

The problem is the civil rights violators that voted for it should foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

scipioafricanus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:07 am

SoupOrMan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:48 am Thanks to JB Pritzker, Illinois is going to see how much Bruen costs the state in legal fees.

The problem is the civil rights violators that voted for it should foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

Interesting article on whether the post-Bruen laws might test the limits of qualified immunity here:

https://standinghisground.com/2023/01/1 ... ing-bruen/

MiddleAgedKen wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:38 am

scipioafricanus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:07 am

SoupOrMan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:48 am Thanks to JB Pritzker, Illinois is going to see how much Bruen costs the state in legal fees.

The problem is the civil rights violators that voted for it should foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

Interesting article on whether the post-Bruen laws might test the limits of qualified immunity here:

https://standinghisground.com/2023/01/1 ... ing-bruen/

Not a bad idea

MiddleAgedKen wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:38 am

scipioafricanus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:07 am

SoupOrMan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:48 am Thanks to JB Pritzker, Illinois is going to see how much Bruen costs the state in legal fees.

The problem is the civil rights violators that voted for it should foot the bill, not the taxpayers.

Interesting article on whether the post-Bruen laws might test the limits of qualified immunity here:

https://standinghisground.com/2023/01/1 ... ing-bruen/

The last sentence is where I see an issue.

Police officers. Yes, they should be held liable for their actions. However, it must not stop their. The LAWMAKERS must directly feel the hit too.

From the 5th Circuit, an actual expansion of rights (or further limitation of the state), in U.S. v. Rahimi

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/02/fi ... ing-order/

Basically, 5th Circuit said that you can't take away someone's right to possess firearms, based solely on a domestic violence protective order issued by a civil court, absent any criminal conviction.

Now, I would like to see them expand this reasoning to cover so-called "red flag" laws, which also involve court orders issued without any criminal conviction.

A judge dismissed charges with the same reasoning over marijuana.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-ma ... 023-02-04/

I guess some people realize that you can't just take rights away on a whim.