Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. [1]
The Supreme Court avoided taking up a series of cases on the right to bear arms and left in place an Illinois law that bans assault-style weapons such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which has ...
(The Center Square) – Whether Illinois should be enjoined from enforcing the state’s gun and magazine ban starting Monday is now up to a federal appeals court. Illinois enacted the Protect ...
On its face, Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (2008), violated the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, because it amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as ...
The 1870 Illinois constitution followed a national trend toward strengthening executive power. [25] The trend was strengthened in Illinois by the high esteem in which the members of the convention held Governor Palmer, even asking for his veto messages to be reprinted so they could be mined for items of constitutional significance. [26]
He testified that the AR-style weapons restricted under the Illinois law are widely popular with consumers and that they are intended for legal purposes. Engineer testifies during 2nd Amendment ...
The defendants then filed a petition under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38 §§ 826–832), under which only questions arising under the State or Federal Constitution could be raised, to obtain a certified copy of the entire record for their appeal, alleging that there were manifest nonconstitutional errors in the trial that entitled them to have their ...
Illinois. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which affirmed the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, and upheld Taylor's conviction. He began by addressing the position of the state of Illinois, who argued that there is never a Compulsory Process Clause concern when preclusion of a witness is used as a discovery sanction. [20]