"The court ruled it was unconstitutional only because the tax ..."
In my view, your statement is technically correct, but only because once the first violation was met, the majority stopped looking at all the other challenges.
Here (38) Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause. (39) Since our holding disposes of this case, additional challenges to the ordinances. we need not address
This was strongly criticized by one of the other judges in the majority.
JUSTICE MICHAEL J. BURKE, specially concurring:
¶ 44 I agree with the majority that Cook County’s special tax on firearms and ammunition violates the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution. Therefore, the appellate court’s judgment must be reversed and summary judgment entered on behalf of plaintiffs. I write separately because I believe that there is an even graver problem with the County’s tax that the majority should not ignore.
To me, BURKE seems to be saying that the case was decided on the wrong constitutional principle and gives the country room to simply modify the tax to suit the stated purpose of the tax.
¶ 47 The majority’s analysis is problematic because it leaves space for a municipality to enact a future tax—singling out guns and ammunition sales—that is more narrowly tailored to the purpose of ameliorating gun violence.
Between 47 and 51 BURKE makes the argument as to why the Tax violates the fundamental right to Keep and Bear Arms which is at the heart of the 2nd Amendment, and violates both the Illinois and US constitution.
¶ 51 Again, I believe that the majority’s analysis wrongly leaves the door open for a municipality to enact a future tax on firearms or ammunition that is more narrowly tailored to the purpose of ameliorating the cost of gun violence. The only problem with that approach is that it would still violate the Illinois Constitution.
"The court ruled it was unconstitutional only because the tax ..."
In my view, your statement is technically correct, but only because once the first violation was met, the majority stopped looking at all the other challenges.
Here (38) Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause. (39) Since our holding disposes of this case, additional challenges to the ordinances. we need not address
This was strongly criticized by one of the other judges in the majority.
JUSTICE MICHAEL J. BURKE, specially concurring:
¶ 44 I agree with the majority that Cook County’s special tax on firearms and ammunition violates the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution. Therefore, the appellate court’s judgment must be reversed and summary judgment entered on behalf of plaintiffs. I write separately because I believe that there is an even graver problem with the County’s tax that the majority should not ignore.
To me, BURKE seems to be saying that the case was decided on the wrong constitutional principle and gives the country room to simply modify the tax to suit the stated purpose of the tax.
¶ 47 The majority’s analysis is problematic because it leaves space for a municipality to enact a future tax—singling out guns and ammunition sales—that is more narrowly tailored to the purpose of ameliorating gun violence.
Between 47 and 51 BURKE the argument as to why the Tax violates the fundamental right to Keep and Bear Arms which is at the heart of the 2nd Amendment, and violates both the Illinois and US constitution.
¶ 51 Again, I believe that the majority’s analysis wrongly leaves the door open for a municipality to enact a future tax on firearms or ammunition that is more narrowly tailored to the purpose of ameliorating the cost of gun violence. The only problem with that approach is that it would still violate the Illinois Constitution.
"The court ruled it was unconstitutional only because the tax ..."
In my view, your statement is technically correct, but only because once the first violation was met, the majority stopped looking at all the other challenges.
Here (38) Thus, we hold the tax ordinances are unconstitutional under the uniformity clause. (39) Since our holding disposes of this case, additional challenges to the ordinances. we need not address
This was strongly criticized by one of the other judges in the majority.
JUSTICE MICHAEL J. BURKE, specially concurring:
¶ 44 I agree with the majority that Cook County’s special tax on firearms and ammunition violates the uniformity clause of the Illinois Constitution. Therefore, the appellate court’s judgment must be reversed and summary judgment entered on behalf of plaintiffs. I write separately because I believe that there is an even graver problem with the County’s tax that the majority should not ignore.
BURKE acknowledges that the case was decided on the wrong constitutional principle and give the country room to simply modify the tax to suit the stated purpose of the tax.
¶ 47 The majority’s analysis is problematic because it leaves space for a municipality to enact a future tax—singling out guns and ammunition sales—that is more narrowly tailored to the purpose of ameliorating gun violence.
Between 47 and 51 BURKE the argument as to why the Tax violates the fundamental right to Keep and Bear Arms which is at the heart of the 2nd Amendment, and violates both the Illinois and US constitution.
¶ 51 Again, I believe that the majority’s analysis wrongly leaves the door open for a municipality to enact a future tax on firearms or ammunition that is more narrowly tailored to the purpose of ameliorating the cost of gun violence. The only problem with that approach is that it would still violate the Illinois Constitution.