-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
“Specifically, the court reasoned that “[n]o language in the Amendment supports [] a conclusion” that noncitizens are excluded from “the people” protected by the Bill of Rights. Id. at 672″.
True, the Amendment(2A) contains no language or definition of ‘people’, because the term ‘people’ was previously defined in the first sentence of the Constitution. “We the People of the United States …”
There was no need to exclude noncitizens explicitly, the intent was clear.
Don’t go through life so ignorant.
I heard a talk radio host tonight (a fill-in for Officer Tatum?) say that the judge did this to sabotage the Bruen decision. I doubt that she cares about the Second Amendment, except to try to destroy it. “an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants”? They were saying it was 10 million, 20 years ago. Maybe it’s 30 million now. NewsNation is garbage. Illegal aliens should be deported. Period, end of story. Judge, your ruling seems to invalidate the FOID Card Law. Is this correct? Why or why not? Mark Glennon, you are citing Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the Communists… Read more »
Hunter Biden broke Federal gun laws (among many others) – no problem. This is how lawlessness goes with Democrats and their two- tiered ‘justice’
Hunter has got some pretty serious legal problems right now. He has a trial date for June 3.
And Joe for many of the charges. How much more evidence could there be against various family members? Eye witnesses, bank records, emails, sworn testimony, Hunter’s laptop, travel records and more. The evidence is there for federal bribery charges, FARA violations, tax evasion, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, lying under oath, collusion and maybe RICO. Yet almost nothing has happened.
Here’s the situational summary. It’s ridiculous and obviously criminal. He literally fired a gun at a car in a reckless manner: Defendant is not a citizen of the United States but has lived in Chicago since 2002. On June 1, 2020, in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, Chicago experienced protests, including some property destruction. That night, in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois, Defendant stood watch in front of a local shop, a business to which Defendant does not assert any connection. According to Defendant, several men attempted to break into the shop. A few minutes… Read more »
Glad you are not a judge, Dave. What you claim was “ridiculous and obviously criminal” wasn’t even the charge. The charge was for illegal possession of a gun, and the judge allowed that charge. Now, in light of changes in First Amendment law, her new opinion says, a different result is necessary.
I’m not sure how you managed to confuse the charge with the situational summary. Who really cares about a reduced charge? I don’t know how much simpler I can state this: he was engaged in reckless criminal behavior, and our justice system is supposed to deter people from shooting at cars and punish accordingly. I can’t think of a more dangerous threat to the public. The justice system is failing! There’s nothing to applaud here. What’s next? Illegals crashing planes into buildings are allowed to circumvent licencing moving forward? Do you not realize how ridiculous and duplicitous criminal justice has… Read more »
Judges aren’t supposed to make up charges for things prosecutors haven’t charged, Dave. The guy was doing a Rittenhouse-type defense against rioters post George Floyd. Maybe that’s why what you don’t like wasn’t the charge at issue.
I understand prosecutorial discretion. Quit playing. Rittenhouse didn’t break any possession laws, and was charged for basically everything prosecutors could think of. I watched the entire trial. The judge threw out the possession charge because the barrel was over 16 inches, otherwise known as the long gun exception. It’s basically a loophole that allowed kids to hunt, but forbids them from carrying pistols. Rittenhouse was charged primarily for self defense, and was acquitted by a jury. The above clown was randomly firing at cars without any evidence of self defense. The whole point of this exercise is to get illegals… Read more »
After thinking about this, USSG allow judges lots of leeway! It’s well known that federal trial judges can significantly enhance sentencing based on acquitted and relevant conduct, under a lower threshold of the preponderance of evidence. To the best of my understanding, this case is still in pretrial. Why US attorneys haven’t charged this guy with being a moron is the major problem.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11037
“The charge was for illegal possession of a gun, and the judge allowed that charge.” In that case I need to exit the conversation, since your statement contradicts the title of this article.
Frank, initially the judge allowed that charge. But now she reversed it because of new decisions by higher courts.
For the comments below: illegals cannot be denied the right to own a gun merely because they are illegal. However, they still have to jump through the hoops like the rest of us and most of them cannot.
The decision is aiding and abetting illegal activity.
“We the people of the United States ..” does not refer to people of the entire world.
” …the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The decision will be overturned in about 2 seconds, or at least should be.
Frank, sorry, but that’s just not the law. I am not saying I agree with it. I am just saying a trial judge is supposed to apply the law that’s out there, and most of the Bill of Rights does apply to aliens here, legal or not, whether we like it or not. Debtsor is right. This decision will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court, and whatever they decide will be the law that trial judges should apply.
Frank, here’s a pretty good article on this case, which addresses the issue of illegals and guns. Again, I am not saying I agree with the end results. I am just saying a trial judge needs to follow what higher courts have said, in this case the Seventh Circuit. Maybe the Supreme Court can fix this. When you get into applying the new Bruen standard for the Second Amendment, I throw up my hands because I think it is so vague. https://reason.com/2024/03/20/another-judge-says-illegal-immigrants-have-second-amendment-rights/
Take our guns and give to illegals…. familiar sound…..that is what they are doing with everything ……ILL…… which I love…. is gone…..thank your greedy unions and politicians. Aren’t they allowing them to become police officers also…….rest my case!!!
No one is taking your guns and giving them to illegals. Take off your tin foil hat.
Nope. “The People” does not include aliens, legal or not. It never has. And 2A pertains to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” not the right of anyone on US soil. This is NOT a ruling championing civil rights. It is a further undermining of the meaning of citizenship by a Marxist/leftist black-robed prelate, doing whatever she wants. By her ‘logic,’ illegals should be able to vote, too. That this decision presents an awkward conundrum for GCA (4473) and FOID is simply delightful, and does shine a light on their unconstitutionality. Lastly, her ruling is about… Read more »
Nope. The people includes all people not just citizens. Your made up interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant.
The Government needs to STOP trying to DISARM LEGAL citizens of this Country. Period. “Shall Not Be Infringed”. Hope this same Judge will rule on some of these cases that affect Legal Citizens.
I am not a lawyer, but the law is so awesome, because the law, in written opinions, strips away all identitarian politics, and judges must rely solely on logic and reasoning, without saying “but I’m this identity”. .. Which is why a black female Obama appointee judge for the first time ever gave illegal immigrants a 2nd amendment right. Because identity politics required the exact opposite conclusion, and even my own disdain of illegal immigrants clouds my vision, but this judge is right. It’s unconstitutional for illegal to be denied the right to own guns. America is about guns, it’s… Read more »
Bravo, debtsor, for looking at legal decisions the way it should be, even if that might not be popular. I should add that I have not looked at the decision yet to say for sure if it was rightly decided that way, but it is true that illegals for the most part have the same constitutional rights here as citizens, whether you like that or not. So often we see reactions to court decisions based only on what the political result was. That shouldn’t be so.
So anyone can enter our country illegally, showing utter disrespect for our Constitution and our legal immigration system, and with no documentation of himself, can carry a lethal weapon because the judge says he hasn’t YET shot someone?
So it’s easier for an illegal to acquire a gun than it is for an actual citizen.
We are at a point where criminals and illegals with guns can overpower citizens.
We already no longer feel safe and this ruling illustrates how the govt is slowly waging a civil war on it’s own people.
Ana, understand that I am not defending the result, just pointing out that established law generally does give constitutional rights to illegals, whether you or I like it or not.
You should read the case. He was firing at moving cars! This is serious criminal behavior, and he’s a danger to the community.
Here’s the case. No, he wasn’t, which is why that’s not what the case is about: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849/gov.uscourts.ilnd.389849.101.0.pdf
Title 18 of the U.S Criminal Code strictly forbids illegal immigrants from possessing firearms on US soil.
8 U.S. Code Section 1325- Improper Entry by Alien
The case was about whether the law he was charged with is unconstitutional He was charged with violating 18 USC 922g5 and the court decided that law was unconstitutional as applied in this case.
Yep, it is not popular. It may be the law, but guys… It is extremely difficult to look at this situation and say that is is OK for someone who entered this Country illegally (I know they claim seeking asylum and therefore somehow it is within the law) to have and carry a gun. Actual Citizens are required to fill out forms, have a waiting period to be able to purchase a weapon. Then it is registered with the state. As I understand it, this gun was unregistered and not legally purchased. Certainly feels like this decision isn’t right for… Read more »
Totally agree with that.
Will they have to apply for a FOID card? What about concealed carry? If they lie on their applications, is it no longer a felony?
Excellent point. Have they all applied for their FOID cards. How will they do a background check on them when they have no ID’s and they will not be able to do a background check on them. So how can they can legally carry a firearm in Illinois when the rest of us have to have a fOID Card – which is Unconstitutional on its face.
Well I’m sure you know law, since being a lawyer, BUT you have to admit it’s f’d up and WRONG! Legal citizens, especially in Illinois must pass a background check, be licensed to own and carry, to buy ammo no matter what the 2nd amend says. Plus legal citizens are NOT always allowed to carry ANYWHERE they please so why should people who BROKE THE LAW entering OUR country allowed, once again, more rights than legal citizens! SORRY I DON’T AGREE AND DON’T CARE IF YOU AND THE “SUPPOSED” RULING IS CORRECT
OOPS sorry you’re not a lawyer (I mis-read) but still seem more knowledgeable than I!