Miller vs Walker - IllinoisCarry Joins Challenge of Day Care Licensee Handgun Ban

[Euler]

On August 28, 2024 at 07:05 AM CDT, Yeti said:→

Thanks for the flurry of updates Euler! Appreciate your contributions to the site very much.

On August 28, 2024 at 09:56 AM CDT, Molly B. said:→

YES!! Greatly appreciated!

The courts got busy last week. "OMG! It's almost September."

Edited August 28, 2024 at 08:48 PM by Euler

[JTHunter]

On 8/28/2024 at 3:44 PM, Euler said:

The courts got busy last week. "OMG! It's almost September."

 

 

Possibly even more than that, the SC comes back into session in what - 6 weeks?

[Euler]

On August 28, 2024 at 12:43 AM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On August 26, the judge set the following schedule:

10/04: amended complaint due
10/16: status hearing

On October 4, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.

[Euler]

On November 26, the magistrate judge set the following schedule:

12/15: initial disclosures due; parties to agree to method/platform for preservation of electronic stored information
12/31: proposals to settle conflicts for preservation of ESI due

2025
01/15: amendments to pleadings due
03/15: fact discovery complete
04/15: experts identified and expert reports due
05/15: expert depositions complete
06/16: rebuttal experts identified and rebuttal expert reports due
06/30: rebuttal expert depositions complete; all discovery complete
08/29: dispositive motions due

2026
01/16: final pretrial conference
01/20: trial

[Molly B.]

2026 will make 8 years to take this case from the first filing to appellate court back to district court and trial. 

[TomKoz]

On 11/26/2024 at 10:41 PM, Molly B. said:

2026 will make 8 years to take this case from the first filing to appellate court back to district court and trial. 

UNACCEPTABLE !!!

 

We need Legal Reform !

[Jeffrey]

Shoulda hired Jessie Smellits lawyers.  

[Euler]

Personally, I wonder what facts there are to discover for this case. It should be a matter of law, not a matter of fact.

Barnett had to have expert testimony, because CA7 said that "Assault Weapons" could be banned if they were "militaristic," so there had to be a determination of fact about that. I don't believe there's any such issue in this case.

[TomKoz]

On 11/27/2024 at 6:56 PM, Euler said:

Personally, I wonder what facts there are to discover for this case. It should be a matter of law, not a matter of fact.

Barnett had to have expert testimony, because CA7 said that "Assault Weapons" could be banned if they were "militaristic," so there had to be a determination of fact about that. I don't believe there's any such issue in this case.

What is a Day Care Licensee?

They need to establish the Fact as to what “is” means !!!

[John Q Public]

They don't even say licence....

[Euler]

On August 22, the state filed for leave to file documents in excess of the usual page limit.

Dispositive motions are due on August 29, so apparently the state has some big ones it intends to file.

Discovery was supposed to be complete on June 30. There hasn't been any effort to extend that date, so presumably it completed on schedule. The trial is still scheduled for January.

[Euler]

On August 28, plaintiffs asked to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions.

[Euler]

On September 5, the state filed several documents and motion.

• It filed a motion for summary judgment.
• It filed its own discovery and expert reports.
• It filed a document under seal, presumably discovery with PII.
• It filed a renewed motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert (Marty Hayes) report. It originally filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert in August 2021.

[Euler]

On September 8, plaintiffs filed their own motion for summary judgment and several exhibits. The arguments focus on the lack of existence of any founding-era analog for a day care ban and the assertion that foster homes and home day cares are not sensitive places.

[Upholder]

 

[Molly B.]

After 8 years and many legal twists and turns, Judge SUE E. MYERSCOUGh has once again ruled against us.

 

gov.uscourts.ilcd.72794.104.0.pdf

[Molly B.]

 

 

c. The DCFS Rules are consistent with the Nation's
historical tradition of firearm regulation in sensitive
places.

1. Day care homes are sensitive places analogous to
schools pursuant to Bruen and Schoenthal.

 

The Court finds that day care homes are learning
environments.

 

The parties raise, and the Court is aware of, no reason why
the historical prohibition on firearms in schools as sensitive places
would be conditional on a specific curriculum taught or child age
group served at a school. Thus, the Court finds that day care homes
are learning environments, just as schools are.

 

2. Foster homes are sensitive places analogous to
schools pursuant to Bruen and Schoenthal.

 

C. The Day Care Home Rule is a Reasonable Condition
Imposed on Receiving the Benefit of a Day Care
Home License.

 

The Court finds that the Day Care Home Rule, assumed to
infringe on Jennifer Miller’s Second Amendment rights, is a
reasonable government restriction on her day care home license
because the Rule is a partial restriction on those rights in order to
protect the physical safety of the children in her day care home who
DCFS is obligated to protect

 

The Court agrees that a
private employer—whether engaged in security, child care, or both,
as foster home parents may well be categorized—would be “justified
in barring its employees from carrying their personal handguns on
the job” or from keeping firearms and ammunition where they are
on the job that are not “stored and locked up separately at all times
and kept in places inaccessible to children.” 

 

The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment
covers the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule, that day
care homes and foster homes are sensitive places analogous to
schools where firearms may be restricted, and, therefore, that the
Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule restricting firearms
kept in day care homes and foster homes, respectively, are
constitutional. The Court also finds that both the Day Care Home
Rule and the Foster Home Rule are reasonable restrictions on
government contractors’ and licensees’ assumedly implicated
Second Amendment rights.
For the reasons set forth, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 89) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (d/e 94) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter
final judgment in favor of Defendants Heidi Mueller and Kwame
Raoul and against the Plaintiffs. Any pending motions are DENIED
as MOOT, any pending deadlines are TERMINATED, and any
scheduled settings are VACATED. This case is CLOSED.

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[Molly B.]

We anticipate an appeal will be filed.  Onward and upward!

[Euler]

We need objective criteria for what makes sensitive places be sensitive places.

Polling places would be a sticky issue, given historical tradition. (Polling places were where a lot of political debate took place, and generally there was no security force. Think of something like Iowa's caucuses and straw polls, at least in the years before WiFi and mail-in ballots, if you remember it.)

Schools and day cares should be easier.

[Tvandermyde]

and at the same time it seems Wisconsin Courts come to the opposite conclusion

 

DisplayDocument.pdf

[Glock43]

On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, Molly B. said:

The Court finds that the Day Care Home Rule, assumed to
infringe on Jennifer Miller’s Second Amendment rights, is a
reasonable government restriction on her day care home license
because the Rule is a partial restriction on those rights in order to
protect the physical safety of the children in her day care home who
DCFS is obligated to protect.

Let’see.  Supreme Court rules multiple times that the government has no “duty to protect”.

 

and the daycare owner has their power to protect eleminated…

[davel501]

On 8/3/2026 at 6:32 PM, Euler said:

We need objective criteria for what makes sensitive places be sensitive places.

Polling places would be a sticky issue, given historical tradition. (Polling places were where a lot of political debate took place, and generally there was no security force. Think of something like Iowa's caucuses and straw polls, at least in the years before WiFi and mail-in ballots, if you remember it.)

Schools and day cares should be easier.

 

It would be a simple test if I wrote it: "Is the government responsible and liable for the safety of those within as well as approaching and leaving from the location?" 

Edited August 4, 2026 at 04:09 AM by davel501

[mikew]

Quote

The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment
covers the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule, that day
care homes and foster homes are sensitive places analogous to
schools where firearms may be restricted, and, therefore, that the
Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule restricting firearms
kept in day care homes and foster homes, respectively, are
constitutional.

 

I found it! it was right there in the 2nd, just after "musket."

[Euler]

On August 3, 2026 at 09:46 PM CDT, Tvandermyde said:→

and at the same time it seems Wisconsin Courts come to the opposite conclusion

DisplayDocument.pdf

The WI opinion contains interesting discussions of voluntary cessation (on the part of DCFS) and voluntary waiver (on the part of the plaintiffs), which concludes that the court cannot assume malice on the part of DCFS without evidence (which doesn't exist).

More importantly, the WI opinion notes that DCFS relies almost exclusively on its expert to assert that the firearm prohibitions are reasonable and align with tradition. It then notes that the very same expert filed an amicus brief in Heller when it was at the Supreme Court making the same arguments that he makes in the WI case and that the Supreme Court totally took those arguments apart when it issued the Heller decision.

I haven't been over all the documents in Miller, but I don't think the opinion in Miller has the same weaknesses. It has different weaknesses. In particular, the WI court declined to address the assertion that day cares and foster homes are sensitive places, because (it said) it wasn't necessary to address. Johnson v Lyon (2018, WD Michigan) says that homes are not "sensitive places," because treating them as such would eviscerate the primary finding in Heller that homes are the places with the greatest need for self-defense.

Edited August 4, 2026 at 06:19 AM by Euler

[TomKoz]

On 8/3/2026 at 4:41 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

c. The DCFS Rules are consistent with the Nation's
historical tradition of firearm regulation in sensitive
places.

1. Day care homes are sensitive places analogous to
schools pursuant to Bruen and Schoenthal.

 

The Court finds that day care homes are learning
environments.

 

The parties raise, and the Court is aware of, no reason why
the historical prohibition on firearms in schools as sensitive places
would be conditional on a specific curriculum taught or child age
group served at a school. Thus, the Court finds that day care homes
are learning environments, just as schools are.

AREN’T ALL HOMES AND TECHNICALLY ANY PLACE WITH CHILDREN OF ANY AGE “LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS”?
 

[Tvandermyde]

On 8/4/2026 at 1:05 AM, Euler said:

The WI opinion contains interesting discussions of voluntary cessation (on the part of DCFS) and voluntary waiver (on the part of the plaintiffs), which concludes that the court cannot assume malice on the part of DCFS without evidence (which doesn't exist).

More importantly, the WI opinion notes that DCFS relies almost exclusively on its expert to assert that the firearm prohibitions are reasonable and align with tradition. It then notes that the very same expert filed an amicus brief in Heller when it was at the Supreme Court making the same arguments that he makes in the WI case and that the Supreme Court totally took those arguments apart when it issued the Heller decision.

I haven't been over all the documents in Miller, but I don't think the opinion in Miller has the same weaknesses. It has different weaknesses. In particular, the WI court declined to address the assertion that day cares and foster homes are sensitive places, because (it said) it wasn't necessary to address. Johnson v Lyon (2018, WD Michigan) says that homes are not "sensitive places," because treating them as such would eviscerate the primary finding in Heller that homes are the places with the greatest need for self-defense.
 

 

 

glad I could provide you with come entertainment Euler

[EdDinIL]

On 8/4/2026 at 1:05 AM, Euler said:

Johnson v Lyon (2018, WD Michigan) says that homes are not "sensitive places," because treating them as such would eviscerate the primary finding in Heller that homes are the places with the greatest need for self-defense.

 

Illinois: "Can we pass a bill making homes with school-aged children sensitive places?"

[Tip]

On 8/4/2026 at 10:04 AM, EdDinIL said:

 

Illinois: "Can we pass a bill making homes with school-aged children sensitive places?"

Or homes that school-aged children might visit…. Gotta get them grandparents and neighbors…. 

[John Q Public]

Didn't read the whole thread, but Foster Care, is much the same. Now, it is your house, and your child, but you can't have loaded firearm? There was some law proposed, that was mostly negative, but, it said that a lawful CCL holder, with a firearm on their person, is considered, properly stored or locked up. I dunno where that went, but makes sense to me. I want a gunfighter with my grands. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2026 at 03:41 PM by John Q Public