Upholder

Wednesday 4/17/2024, a number of filings were made by both sides: 92 - REPLY by Plaintiffs Benjamin Schoenthal, Joseph Vesel, Douglas Winston, Mark Wroblewski to response in opposition to motion 86, memorandum in opposition to motion 84, motion for summary judgment 69 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 1 LAWS OF NEW YORK (Websters & Skinner 2d ed. 1807) (corrected), # 2 Exhibit B - JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Richmond, Thomas W. White 1828) (corrected), # 3 Exhibit C - Plaintiffs' F.R. Civ. P. 26 Initial Disclosures)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document, Exhibit A - 1 LAWS OF NEW YORK (Websters & Skinner 2d ed. 1807) (corrected), Exhibit B - JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Exhibit C - Plaintiffs' F.R. Civ. P. 26 Initial Disclosures 93 - RULE 56 F.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A),(B); L.R. 56.1(c)(2) Statement by Benjamin Schoenthal, Joseph Vesel, Douglas Winston, Mark Wroblewski regarding motion for summary judgment 63 (Response To State Defendants' SJ Statement of Additional Material Facts) (Dkt. #83)) (Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document 94 - REPLY by Rick Amato, Robert Berlin, Kwame Raoul, Eric Rinehart to MOTION by Defendants Rick Amato, Robert Berlin, Eric Rinehart, Kwame Raoul for summary judgment 63, response in opposition to motion,, 87 (Freilich Jones, Isaac) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document 95 - REPLY by Defendant Kimberly M. Foxx to motion for summary judgment 67 in Support of Motion (Scheller, Jessica) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document

I forgot floating clowns in the list.

That would clearly be too expensive to implement. They will instead ban purchase, sale, transfer, carry, possession, manufacture, spindling, and mutilation within 3 miles of any trashcan, dustbin, garbage disposal, dumpster, dump, waste management facility or transport, gutter, sewer, storm drain, or manhole. We're not taking anyone's guns away.

Lawyer: "Smith and Wesson deceptively marketed its firearm as being associated with the military and police, when it is in fact not." That's a STUNNING admission by the plaintiffs' lawyer in front of Easterbrook.

Judge Hamilton: "You agree that you are asking for a declaration, in one form or another, that the defendant's product is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act" Lawyer: "We actually, in neither of the complaints, actually in the declaratory relief specifically ask.. " Judge Hamilton: "You are alleging that that's what they are and that's one of the reasons why the marketing campaign is deceptive." Lawyer: "That is correct" Judge Hamilton: "I don't want to quibble on this. So, first of all, the theory is that millions of Americans are committing a crime by possessing those products, correct? Lawyer: *stammers* "I I I I don't think the... I mean.. that is certainly a defense." Judge Hamilton: "That is the logical consequence of the argument you are making, Correct?" Lawyer: "Correct."

The plaintiffs' lawyer argues that while the ATF has not determined that the M&P15 is a machine gun, some AR15 platform rifles are machine guns.

Judge Hamilton is pushing back that the State Judge has the authority to determine that the S&W M&P15 is an NFA regulated machine gun. The defense argues that interpreting the NFA is an issue for federal courts, not state courts.

The lawyer for the defense barely makes it a minute before Easterbrook interrupts him, and then while answering his question makes it less than another minute before being interrupted again.

Link to the audio of the oral arguments on April 4, 2024: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.23-2992.23-2992_04_04_2024.mp3

Roberts v. Smith & Wesson (7th Circuit): The panel is Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Kolar

That is literally the job of judges, to look at the laws, how/when they were written and then interpret what the parties who wrote it meant and how it applies to the situation in front of the court. A simple contract case is treated exactly the same, although the time frame is usually shorter.

William Kirk's discussion of this suit:

On Monday, 3/25/2024, Cross motions by the Plaintiffs and Defendants opposing each other's Summary Judgement motions were filed: State Parties’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment 2024.03.25_084_State_D's_Opposition_to_P's_(PFC)_MSJ.pdf Defendant Foxx’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement 2024.03.25_086_D_Foxx's_Opposition_to_P's_(FPC)_MSJ.pdf Plaintiffs’ Combined Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-motions for Summary Judgment 2024.03.25_087_P's_(FPC)_Opposition_to_D's_MSJ.pdf

and it certainly cannot contradict the law itself, nor restrict how prosecutors interpret it.