Comm2A Files Amicus Brief in Chicago AWB Case

Knuckle Dragger

Knuckle Dragger

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,299
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
Comm2A has filed an amicus brief in Wilson v. Cook County, a case that seeks to overturn Chicago's ban on so-called assault weapons. Our brief highlights the purpose and history of the features banned by the Cook County ordinance in order to illustrate to the court that the ban fails to advance any legitimate state interest. Rather, the Cook County ordinance bans several important product enhancements that improve the usability and safety of several classes of firearms in common use.

Story

Brief
 
Knowing who is involved makes me all warm an fuzzy. Best of luck, we all need it.

Sent from the Hyundai of the droids, the Samsung Replenish, using Tapatalk.
 
Is this the same Comm2A as here, or a different branch? I'm not quite following the connection.
 
Coyote33 said:
Is this the same Comm2A as here, or a different branch? I'm not quite following the connection.
Click to expand...

There is only one Comm2a and they are folks here in MA. An Amicus Brief is a "friend of the court" brief. That is, it is filed by a person or organization that is not a party to the lawsuit but is interested in it's outcome.
 
M1911 said:
There is only one Comm2a and they are folks here in MA. An Amicus Brief is a "friend of the court" brief. That is, it is filed by a person or organization that is not a party to the lawsuit but is interested in it's outcome.
Click to expand...

Well then. Is GOAL also filing one of these briefs? How about NRA? GOA? SAF? All the other state foundations, groups, and agencies with a stake in this? All the AG's with a stake in this to support their citizens?
 
This is great! I think. I honestly learn more and more about law and courts and other stuff I used to not care about, every time you guys start a thread. [thumbsup]

Thanks for all you do. [cheers]
 
edmorseiii said:
This is great! I think.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's refreshing to see the antis being directly called out on their bullshit. As to the question of connection, it seems pretty obvious to me. As far as I know, this is the first challenge to an AW ban post Heller/McDonald (Silveira in the 9th circuit fell to the ridiculous 'collective right' argument pre-Heller). It's pretty critical to get this right the first time. While a state supreme court decision in Illinois isn't binding on MA or federal courts, they'll still look to whatever is out there if there isn't a binding precedent to cite. Also, assuming the Illinois Supreme Court is the highest state court, the next appeal would go to SCOTUS, which obviously bind the whole country.

I wasn't familiar with this case before this post. I'll have to read up on the history of the case and read the other filings. My first reaction is curiosity why it was filed in state court instead of federal.
 
Coyote33 said:
Does this address magazines with greater than 10 capacity?
Click to expand...

Yes. The only thing this doesn't address is flash hiders and bayonets as the Cook County ordinance does not address these features. The latter will be easy to dispatch and the former is likely to fall by inference if this is done right. I also want to stress, that this is in a state court is important to letting this topic simmer a while. This is no rocket docket. Additionally, this particular case will be a reverse and remand and it will go back up through the courts at least one more time so long as this is decided properly.
 
terraformer said:
Yes. The only thing this doesn't address is flash hiders and bayonets as the Cook County ordinance does not address these features.. ....
Click to expand...
Ironically enough, whereas MA regards flash suppressors as evil and muzzle brakes perfectly acceptable, Cook County has a polar opposite perspective. In Cook County, muzzle brakes are bad and flash suppressors are fine.[thinking]
 
Gonna have to send you guys a bonus check. Won't be for a couple of weeks though. Got a couple of bills I need to pay then I'll get you something. Thanks.
 
Good job! one question though. Is this a type-o in the brief (page 19)

The AFMER manufacturing data from 1998 to 2010 shows that while 4,823,284 revolvers were manufactured for sale in the US during that time, more than three times the number, or 14,354,982 semi-automatic handguns where manufactured for sale in the US.19 During that same time frame, 10,116,875 shotguns and 20,413,492 were manufactured for sale in the United States.
Click to expand...

Where the "20,413,492 were manufactured", shouldn't it be "20,413,492 semi-automatic rifles were manufactured"?
 
Last edited:
This is good stuff. It shows that Comm2A is aware of the big picture in stuff like this. What happens in other states regarding RKBA legal action, especially action that involves federal dealings, has the chance of affecting outcomes in MA down the road. (or for that matter, other states that have similar problems/bans).

-Mike
 
jrbtzx12r said:
Good job! one question though. Is this a type-o in the brief (page 19)



Where the "20,413,492 were manufactured", shouldn't it be "20,413,492 semi-automatic rifles were manufactured"?
Click to expand...

The word rifles is missing... Crap, do you know how many people read this??? [laugh] I will see if we can fix it.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The typo was intentional[wink], we just wanted to see if anyone would actually read the brief. It's a masterpiece and well worth the read.
Click to expand...

The only part I didn't care for was the part defending revolving shotguns. I don't think they're especially dangerous or constitutionally unprotected, I just don't think they're an advance in the state of the art like the other things.
 
Nice work.

But why use the term "citizen" so frequently? As in, "this feature allows the law-abiding citizen to ..." Aren't we advocating for the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans?
 
bill o said:
Nice work.

But why use the term "citizen" so frequently? As in, "this feature allows the law-abiding citizen to ..." Aren't we advocating for the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans?
Click to expand...

Legally, the term citizen has a broader meaning than just those with conferred or birth citizenship rights. Or at the very least, it encompasses a broader cross section of the population in the legal world. Also, give me a good replacement for the term citizen and we will use it. People/persons is not good as it's not specific enough as to whom. Anyone is a person including cops and military. Civilian is also not specific enough as that could mean police/civil government as opposed to military (and usually does mean that BTW). Militia member could work but that has it's own set of issues with the private militia movement. The only replacement would be a run on list of qualifiers repeated over and over again.

Thinking about it, we could possibly define citizen in the document... That could work.
 
Last edited:
if you do define "citizen" be sure to add "including police officers" to that definition. Might be a nice reminder for all involved.
 

Similar threads

VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
187
Reptile
Reptile
Concealed Carrier Kills Alleged Robber in Chicago Shootout
Replies
3
Views
208
Rocky Mosasaurus
Rocky Mosasaurus
Chicago police officer shot dead and has car taken during commute home: Officials
Replies
1
Views
173
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Video: Female University of Chicago Student Disarms Would-Be Robber by Ejecting His Magazine
Replies
18
Views
403
Masswhole
Masswhole
Glocks in MA
2 3
Replies
80
Views
2K
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Back
Top Bottom