cbunt32

They seemed to want to stay the case until Duncan v Bonta is decided.

Maybe it was low expectations but I was pleasantly surprised by the questions asked. Definitely sounded like they were inclined to remand.

Looks like the case was remanded. Is it normal to take that long just to remand the case? https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5472/attachments/original/1687275184/Atkinson_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf?1687275184

I missed everything but the first and last couple minutes. How'd it go overall?

I thought the same thing. Regardless all of them can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds so, no, we can't carry the magazines police do.

Agreed. Now if we don't see the same thing when the state presents their case, I'll be worried.

Greg Bishop is live tweeting it. Not sure why we can't listen in

Enjoyed reading your declaration. I imagine much of it was news to the state

How about the argument that killing someone with a pistol or shotgun can be self defense but if you kill them with an AR15 that's just using more force than is necessary and there is no claim to self defense.

They said the phrase "M-16 rifles and the like" so many times it made me read Heller again. It reads to me that SCOTUS was pointing out how silly the argument is that the 2nd amendment only applied to use in a militia but also weapons most useful in military service (M-16 rifles and the like) can be banned. In other words, weapons of war is exactly what the 2nd amendment protects.

I'm not an attorney but I feel like the state is reading Heller wrong.

I continue to have this feeling that the Naperville case is going to screw this whole thing up. Yes, it's just the preliminary injunction at this point but without that this litigation will take years.

Yes, and I hate to say it but a stay on the circuit court cases makes sense. Why waste a circuit court judges time when the issue is at the appellate court level. Hopefully the judge at least recognizes the FFL case is different enough to let it go forward. But...the state also has not asked for a stay yet so maybe we are worrying over nothing. I suspect we'll know more tomorrow.

They could have just not appealed the decision on the preliminary injunction and let the other cases catch up. But, no, they want to be first

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it seems like this is more of a status hearing to make sure everyone is on the same page. I can’t imagine the judge would rule on a TRO when the state hasn’t responded to the motion yet. The judge extended that to march

Not an attorney but my impression is our best shot is on the Southern IL cases and Bevis moving forward with an appeal risks the state getting a stay on the Southern IL cases.

The hearing tomorrow isn’t on the TRO

Just my opinion, the rush to be first are screwing the cases where they are trying to do it right and build a record. Caulking screwing over Devore. Bevis screwing the other cases. (Todd’s comment about the state going for a stay on the cases in the south due to Bevis appeal has me spooked.) I get we all want this struck down as quickly as possible but it doesn’t help if we lose.

Well, Notice of Appeal filed. I hope this doesn't impact the other cases

Getting a stay on the Southern IL cases is a concerning thought. Would almost guarantee this drags on for years.

Were those FFL's also included in one of the 3 TRO's? If so then they might just be overly cautious? But if that were the case why be part of the litigation...?

The motion asks for it statewide but even Caulkins attorney has said the TRO was a negotiated unopposed order.

So if under US v Rahimi the govt can't deny 2nd amendment rights to someone under a Domestic Violence Restraining Order, common sense would indicate the govt can't deny 2nd amendment rights to otherwise law biding citizens simply because they don't have a FOID.

It was upheld on Count IV which was the equal protection allegation

I believe you are correct. I think the court looked at whether assault weapons were in common use in 1791 (can't do that per Caetano) and whether citizens have other means of self defense (again...Caetano). Add Heller, Bruen, and other cases in to the discussion and the whole thing is nonsense. But this started out as a suit against Naperville and shifted to a suit against the State AWB. That might be enough for the judge to punt on the TRO issue.