gunuser17

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 18‐2385 LARRY E. HATFIELD, v. Plaintiff‐Appellee, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 3:16‐cv‐00383‐JPG‐RJD — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 12, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 6, 2019 ____________________ Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. A person “who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is forbidden to possess a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-2385/18-2385-2019-06-06.html

They didn't hear the case, they heard a motion to stay the district court's order while the appeal was pending. As a result the 9th Circuit put this new case on hold while they decide a very similar case that has already been briefed. As I expect, once the 9th Circuit rules in the older case that the ban is ok, they will remand this new case to the district court telling that court to now take into account the expected decision in the older case. In total, they can then defer dealing with this new Benitez decision for a couple of years at least.

Yes, I saw the no opposition filing again also. Just submitted by resignation to the ISRA.

Full circle the wagons mode just like the NRA. No more dues from me to ISRA.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/judge-dismisses-nra-bankruptcy-case-group-faces-new-york-lawsuit.html

Personally identifiable information has nothing to do with privilege. Privilege only has to do with attorney-client communications. Personally identifiable information is produced in civil litigation all of the time. Such information is often redacted in some way in open court filings but the parties can still make full use of the documents. The court would typically enter a protective order that specifies the information that is exchanged during the law suit that cannot be publically disclosed. Even that information often is disclosed during the actucal course of a trial since very seldom is the courtroom closed to the public during a trial.

The store's inventory log is all that's needed. Guns come in; serial numbers get recorded. Guns go out; 4473s get recorded. The store has to produce those records every time the ATF audits it. If the records don't match, the ATF gets angry. Also the ATF already runs trace reports on all "crime" guns. Except that is not how discovery works in litigation. The lawyers will have the right to look at and get copies of any and all sales documents that are maintained by the store that reflect any sale or purchase of a firearm or identify a purchaser or seller (as I suspect the store buys used firearms). The store will also have to produce all of their emails that relate to sales or purchases or inquiries relating to firearms along with a host of electronic records from their vendors/distributors. Ask anyone that has been through the ringer in civil litigation and the ability to discover information is very broad.

The case will probably not be dismissed until there has been extensive discovery including production of all of the firearm purchase documents for at least the past couple of years. The issue of how many guns were illegally sold, if any, will be part of litigation and the goal of the city most likely is to just use the cost of litigation to put the FFL out of business. The better case for dismissal for the FFL may well be that even if the City's assertions are true, the "City" itself has not suffered any damages and therefore has no standing to sue. Not sure how that might work. A better plaintiff would be someone injured by a firearm that was sold by that FFL to a straw purchaser who then transferred the gun to a criminal in Chicago that injured the "someone" in Chicago. To get jurisdiction, Chicago will probably argue that it incurs police costs or medical costs as the result of a straw purchase used in a crime in Chicago.

Let's face reality. The Supreme Court narrowed the question enough that they can decide only whether the plaintiffs rights were violated. Such a decision can give them relief without necessarily ruling on any particular scheme to regulate carry. If that is what happens, the ruling could have little or no impact on everyone else regardless of where you live. Only time will tell now. More importantly, will the state grant the plaintiffs the requested permits and moot the case once again.

I would first assume that the email alert was a phishing scam looking to obtain information. Before I would do anything, I would attempt to determine whether the alert notification was legitimate. I strongly suspect that it was not legitimate.

I would suspect that bringing the letter would be of no use. You either pass the background check or you do not. I don't beleive that any FFL would go through with the transfer after you are rejected just because you have a letter that you say is authentic since the FFL has no real way of judging whether the letter is authentic. If you do not pass, then it will be on you to sort out the issue with the various police agencies to get that turned around. I would not expect that the FBI has done anything with any communication that you only sent to them last week.

Isn't this the old Bridgeview Sports location that closed not that long ago?

Order from June, 2020 - case appears to be in the middle of expert discovery right now: 06/03/2020 TEXT ORDER by U.S. Magistrate Tom Schanzle-Haskins: Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery Production 39 and Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time and Cross-Motion for Stay, or in the Alternative for Extension of Case Deadlines 40 are ALLOWED in part. Plaintiffs are given an extension of time to 6/15/2020 to comply fully with this Court's Text Order entered 4/22/2020. The Court extends and revises the schedule in this case as follows: Fact Discovery due by 11/1/2020; Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure due by 11/30/2020; Defendant's Expert Disclosure due by 2/1/2021; Expert Discovery due by 4/15/2021; Dispositive Motions due by 6/01/2021; pretrial conference set for 6/01/2021 is CANCELED and reset 9/7/2021 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 1 in Springfield before U.S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough. Bench Trial set for 6/15/2021 is CANCELED and reset 9/21/2021 at 9:00 AM before Judge Myerscough; and Telephonic Status Conference set 1/20/2021 is CANCELLED and reset Thursday, 4/15/2021, at 10:00 AM (court will place call) before Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/03/2020)

73-2.pdf73-main.pdf 73-1.pdf Main ISRA Reply Brief and supporting declarations

Deleted