Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban

[Euler]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:23 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Because of Naperville, March 8th hearing scheduled in VIRAMONTES

 

Recall that there's a motion to stay the Viramontes proceedings until litigation over the state ban concludes.

 

Order said:

...

To focus the March 8 motion hearing, the court directs the parties to be prepared to address the following issues:

1. At what stage "litigation over the Illinois Ban" will be, in Plaintiffs' view, "concluded." ...

2. Whether Harrel remains relevant, in light of the court's decision in Bevis and the respective timelines of the two cases.

3. Whether a decision from the Seventh Circuit, either in Bevis or Harrel would be dispositive. In other words, whether the Cook County ban differs, for purposes of the Bruen framework, from the Naperville or statewide bans.

...

 

"The court's decision in Bevis" was the denial of the preliminary injunction.

 

On 2/28/2023 at 9:53 AM, cbunt32 said:

I continue to have this feeling that the Naperville case is going to screw this whole thing up. ...

 

The judge is really just asking if there's a point to continuing litigation over the county ban since the battle over the state ban is probably going to settle everything, including the county ban.

 

My opinion: I'd argue that the litigation over the county ban should continue, because a decision in the 7th Circuit would (probably) not be dispositive for the county ban. Consider that the (previous) state preemption of handgun magazine limits didn't stop Cook County from enforcing its own limit, anyway. Whatever happens outside of Cook County is going to have to be tied up with a bow and hand-delivered to Cook County for Cook County to get the message.

[Plinkermostly]

we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, We shall never surrender

 

shall not be infringed

[Upholder]

Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.82.0.pdf

[Upholder]

They've gone way off the deep end this time:

 

 

 

[DaveIL]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:28 PM, Upholder said:

They've gone way off the deep end this time:

 

 

 

In addition, the 5.56mm/.223 caliber ammunition used in semiautomatic rifles experiences “yaw” when it hits human tissue, meaning it begins to revolve, creating a larger temporary cavity

 

I found a favorite already. Geez, really.

[cbunt32]

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.

Edited March 3, 2023 at 08:05 PM by cbunt32

[steveTA84]

They went completely crazy. Check this out too LOL . Accuracy is bad now

Edited March 3, 2023 at 09:56 PM by steveTA84

[DaveIL]

Page 23 "

The mere presence of an Assault Weapon can make an individual more violent."

 

Yeah, when I unzip the gun case and I can see it, I start beating my wife. LOL....

 

When I go to the gun store I am very pleasant until I see the walls of semi-automatics, then I start berating everyone around. /s 

[steveTA84]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:06 PM, DaveIL said:

Page 23 "

The mere presence of an Assault Weapon can make an individual more violent."

 

Yeah, when I unzip the gun case and I can see it, I start beating my wife. LOL....

 

When I go to the gun store I am very pleasant until I see the walls of semi-automatics, then I start berating everyone around. /s 

I start shaking with rage and see red whenever I see threaded barrels on semi-automatic magazine fed rifles and pistols 

[Upholder]

I'm waiting for one of the plaintiffs in the various cases where they keep comparing banned AR-15 assault weapons as being more dangerous than handguns.. and that they're not protected while handguns are protected.. to point out that the law is also banning handguns.

 

It's the same level of stupidity where they say that "assault weapons" are more dangerous than "high power rifles".

 

Not that any of this is legally relevant since interest balancing has no place in determining the constitutionality of a law under the second amendment post NYSPRA v Bruen.

[mab22]

On 3/3/2023 at 1:28 PM, Upholder said:

They've gone way off the deep end this time:

 

 

 

But law enforcement may use them on civilians? 

[Euler]

On 1/19/2023 at 9:46 PM, Upholder said:

Naperville has moved to consolidate Bevis v Naperville with this case:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.65.0.pdf

 

On March 2, Naperville withdrew the motion.

[Tvandermyde]

 

[drumgod]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:32 PM, mab22 said:

But law enforcement may use them on civilians? 

Law enforcement are civilians.

[Flynn]

On 3/6/2023 at 1:36 PM, drumgod said:

Law enforcement are civilians.

 

That is worth repeating, as for far too long they have been treated as some elite class of civlian citizens with more rights than others, that needs to end.

[Tvandermyde]

On 3/6/2023 at 5:29 PM, Flynn said:

 

That is worth repeating, as for far too long they have been treated as some elite class of civlian citizens with more rights than others, that needs to end.

except, they act with the full authority of the State, as a State actor, that is why they are granted a high level of immunity for their actions and it is tuff to breach. 

 

Retired cops, thats something different. Wardens security guards they are different too. 

 

Don't forget it

[davel501]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:33 PM, Tvandermyde said:

except, they act with the full authority of the State, as a State actor, that is why they are granted a high level of immunity for their actions and it is tuff to breach. 

 

Retired cops, thats something different. Wardens security guards they are different too. 

 

Don't forget it

 

Either you are subject to the UCMJ or you're a regular citizen. We need to start hammering them on that. 

[Flynn]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:33 PM, Tvandermyde said:

except, they act with the full authority of the State, as a State actor, that is why they are granted a high level of immunity for their actions and it is tuff to breach. 

 

I understand that, and when they are on the clock they are a state actor and should have some extra immunity in the line of duty, but IMO it's currently too much.  They are still just citizens, not active military under government control 24/7.  That said once they are off duty and not actively working they are just ordinary citizens that have for too long been granted rights denied to most others...

 

Quote

Retired cops, thats something different. Wardens security guards they are different too. 

 

Of course, these are all 100% ordinary citizens that should never have had and should never be afforded any cut outs or extra rights that are not equaly ganted to all.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 at 05:51 AM by Flynn

[davel501]

On 3/6/2023 at 11:48 PM, Flynn said:

 

I understand that, and when they are on the clock they are a state actor and should have some extra immunity in the line of duty, but IMO it's currently too much.  They are still just citizens, not active military under government control 24/7.  That said once they are off duty and not actively working they are just ordinary citizens that have for too long been granted rights denied to most others...

 

 

Of course, these are all 100% ordinary citizens that should never have had and should never be afforded any cut outs or extra rights that are not equaly ganted to all.

 

 

What does a police officer do that civilians don't do in some roles? Bail bondsmen arrest people and take them to jail. Security detains people on private property. Any use of force would fall under self defense. 

 

There's probably a good example I'm not thinking of but every duty I can think of has a civilian that does the job somewhere in the country. 

[Flynn]

On 3/7/2023 at 12:00 AM, davel501 said:

 

What does a police officer do that civilians don't do in some roles? Bail bondsmen arrest people and take them to jail. Security detains people on private property. Any use of force would fall under self defense. 

 

There's probably a good example I'm not thinking of but every duty I can think of has a civilian that does the job somewhere in the country. 

 

Not sure what you are getting at?  I'm in the police are civilians crowd, the other civilian jobs you talk about like bondsmen and security guards are granted similar police like powers by some states, but generally like police those same powers are not grated to everyone else and they generally don't have qualified immunity by the state either.  Either way those other jobs are yet another example of a class of civilians that are granted special rights (generally extended 2nd rights) due to their day job while others are denied those rights, I'm against that.

[davel501]

On 3/7/2023 at 12:15 AM, Flynn said:

 

Not sure what you are getting at?  I'm in the police are civilians crowd, the other civilian jobs you talk about like bondsmen and security guards are granted similar police like powers by some states, but generally like police those same powers are not grated to everyone else and they generally don't have qualified immunity by the state either.  Either way those other jobs are yet another example of a class of civilians that are granted special rights (generally extended 2nd rights) due to their day job while others are denied those rights, I'm against that.

 

I think I'm probably agreeing with you. Qualified immunity extends to huge swaths of government employees in the course of their regular duties. The more you think about it, the less that makes the police special. 

[Flynn]

On 3/7/2023 at 12:20 AM, davel501 said:

 

I think I'm probably agreeing with you. Qualified immunity extends to huge swaths of government employees in the course of their regular duties. The more you think about it, the less that makes the police special. 

 

Yeah, qualified immunity is far too broad across too many government jobs, it serves a purpose but it's gone to far and even when caught red handed wilfully and intentionally doing unconstitutional things they are rarely actually held accountable.  But, this is really a seperate (albeit connected) issue to other things like special 2nd rights being granted to some based on their day job.

[davel501]

On 3/7/2023 at 12:48 AM, Flynn said:

 

Yeah, qualified immunity is far too broad across too many government jobs, it serves a purpose but it's gone to far and even when caught red handed wilfully and intentionally doing unconstitutional things they are rarely actually held accountable.  But, this is really a seperate (albeit connected) issue to other things like special 2nd rights being granted to some based on their day job.

 

Yeah, there's really nothing that justifies it. The promise of law enforcement is it's the biggest gang in the land. You mess the police and more keep showing up until they win. 

[Molly B.]

CORRECTED MINUTE entry before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Minute entry 83 is stricken and corrected as follows: Pursuant to notice 79, Plaintiff's motion to reassign 64 is stricken without prejudice. Mailed notice. (cp, ) (Entered: 03/07/2023)

Main Doc­ument

Quote

Order on Motion to Reassign Case

 

 

What does this mean? 

[Euler]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:16 PM, Molly B. said:

CORRECTED MINUTE entry before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Minute entry 83 is stricken and corrected as follows: Pursuant to notice 79, Plaintiff's motion to reassign 64 is stricken without prejudice. Mailed notice. (cp, ) (Entered: 03/07/2023)

Main Doc­ument

 

What does this mean? 

 

Viramontes filed a motion to move the hearing to stay from Judge Pallmeyer's court, then changed his mind. Pallmeyer struck the record of the request from the record, so it's like it never happened.

 

Meanwhile, there's a hearing on the motion to stay tomorrow (March 8) at 1pm, which the public may attend by phone.

Call in number: 312-646-0998

Access code: 501 065 584#

Attendees are reminded that recording and rebroadcasting are prohibited.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 at 12:50 AM by Euler

[Euler]

I dialed in to the public number. The hearing started a few minutes late and lasted a little under 30 minutes.

 

• The judge asked if plaintiffs would consider withdrawing without prejudice instead of requesting a stay without prejudice.
• Plaintiffs responded that this case is done except for judgment. It would be onerous on each side to start over.
• Defendants responded that they oppose the stay, because there would be inevitable prejudice against them.
  • The county has spent money on expert testimony.
  • The county's ban is more restrictive. It bans possession, which the state grandfathers, and requires smaller magazines.
  • The county's ban has already been upheld by the IL Supreme Court.
  • The stay is forum shopping.
• Plaintiffs replied that Bevis and Viramontes are separate cases, so plaintiffs are not seeking to transfer Viramontes to another venue. A decision in Viramontes would have to be revisited once the Federal Appeals Court rules on Bevis.
• The judge was concerned that the stay is only until the Bevis injunction appeal is resolved, not a final Bevis judgment.
• Defendants asserted that Bruen specifies that the court must first determine if a weapon is used for self-defense to be covered by 2A and reiterates that assault weapons are not weapons of self-defense, therefore they are not covered by 2A, therefore Bevis should not affect Viramontes.
• [Plaintiffs did not argue that that is an incorrect interpretation of Bruen.]

 

It appeared to me like both sides came prepared to argue their cases, but unprepared to argue against the opposing case.

[Tvandermyde]

and they forgot about Atkinson, the court could come down with the ruling anytime that could set some guidelines for the lower courts

[Silhouette]

Thank you very much, Euler, for typing up this synopsis of the hearing!

[Molly B.]

Thank you Euler!!

[MrTriple]

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1633678586879016963?s=20

 

Looks like the stay was denied. The judge's reasoning seems sound to me, doesn't sound bad. It appears her concern is about moving the case along quickly with a fully developed record.

Edited March 9, 2023 at 04:29 AM by MrTriple