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

[Euler]

Well, that was fast.

 

Order said:

...

... While Bevis -- on appeal after Judge Kendall declined to issue a preliminary injunction -- will reach the Seventh Circuit first, there is no guarantee that it will be resolved in a way that resolves this case, too. That leaves this case as the first one likely to reach the Seventh Circuit after a final judgment, on a fully-developed record. Given the importance of the issues and the substantial attention to the issue presented here, the public interest weighs in favor of presenting a case with substantial record to the Court of Appeals as quickly as possible. This case provides the best vehicle.

...

 

On reflection, the judge telegraphed her decision during the hearing when she asked about staying the Viramontes case only until after the Bevis injunction.

 

She's pretty matter-of-fact about her decision getting appealed, whichever way it goes. Also she appears intent on creating the best decision in her court for the 7th Circuit to review.

[Tvandermyde]

I think they made an error in not raising Atkinson the COA could issue a ruling and do a dive into the New York analysis and set down a marker for the lower courts seeing the volume of litigation heading their way.

[MrTriple]

On 3/9/2023 at 11:44 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I think they made an error in not raising Atkinson the COA could issue a ruling and do a dive into the New York analysis and set down a marker for the lower courts seeing the volume of litigation heading their way.

Can you clarify what you mean? Also, what's your view on the likely outcome of these federal cases given the timelines of Barnett, Bevis, and potentially Viramontes?

 

My question still remains, "Why no TRO or preliminary injunction yet?"

[davel501]

On 3/9/2023 at 11:44 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I think they made an error in not raising Atkinson the COA could issue a ruling and do a dive into the New York analysis and set down a marker for the lower courts seeing the volume of litigation heading their way.

 

I wish there was more collaboration amongst the legal teams to head off the divide and conquer strategy the state is attempting.

[Tvandermyde]

On 3/9/2023 at 12:01 PM, MrTriple said:

Can you clarify what you mean? Also, what's your view on the likely outcome of these federal cases given the timelines of Barnett, Bevis, and potentially Viramontes?

 

My question still remains, "Why no TRO or preliminary injunction yet?"

Atkinson is pending in front of the 7th COA. It deals with a non-violent felon trying to get his rights back. It was the first look at 2A issues post New york for the Court of appeals. The orals went very badly for the DOJ/guberment. They can do a few things 3 of the 4  should be good for us 

remand no direction -- see New York. I don't see this as likely

Remand See New York -- with a discussion of how to apply New York just as when they did Ezell and applied the two part standard.

Finds against us -- there has to be an explanation of how they applied New York which the lower courts will need to apply

Finds for Atkinson -- there has to be an explanation of New York and how they applied it for the lower courts to take note of. 

 

To me, the COA has to see the log jam of cases coming their way. why not head of a lot of it by giving them direction it would be getting front of the ball as the Atkinson panel has the Chief judge on it and she should be aware of the wave coming toward the court of appeals. 

 

But there was no mention to the court that maybe slow your roll and lets see what the COA says in in Atkinson which could help the Court. 

[thepointbeing]

Plaintiffs response to Cook County Request for Summary Judgement ...

Viramontes_v_Cook_County_97_MSJ_Response.pdf

[South Side 27]

https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2023/04/25/second-amendment-foundations-reply-in-illinois-semi-auto-case-a-deep-dish-n69812

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs Cutberto Viramontes, Christopher Khaya, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and Second Amendment Foundation, by and through their attorneys, respectfully move this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to enter summary judgment in their favor and against the Defendants. In support of this motion, and in accordance with Local Rule 56.1, this motion is accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law and a statement of undisputed material facts attaching all cited evidentiary material.

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067128579966

[Upholder]

Here is the link to the motion for summary judgment from courtlistener (the above link wants a PACER login):

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.102.0.pdf

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 at 09:50 PM by Upholder
correct link

[Upholder]

There's been a number of filings recently.   The filings from Cook County can be reasonably summarized by:

 

 

[mab22]

On 5/9/2023 at 11:38 AM, Upholder said:

There's been a number of filings recently.   The filings from Cook County can be reasonably summarized by:

 

 

Have the anti’s resorted to hiring the “cheapest”, not the “smartest” attorneys?

Thats all kinda confusing. 

[Euler]

On March 3, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in their favor.

On April 24, plaintiffs responded.

 

On May 8, defendants moved to strike plaintiffs' response as out of order for failing to follow Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On May 9, the judge struck the plaintiffs' response and set the following schedule:

 

May 22: plaintiffs' response which follows the rules is due

June 5: defendants' reply is due

[Hap]

What was the problem with the plaintiffs’ response?

[gunuser17]

I don't see the order but according to defendant:  "Plaintiffs responded to Defendants’ L.R. 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Dkt. 98. Plaintiffs’ response is comprised almost exclusively of improper legal argument, statements of additional fact which are not permitted in a L.R. 56.1(b)(3) statement, immaterial statements of fact or law, purported disputes which are either failures to take a position on the fact or admissions disguised as disputes, and are reliant almost entirely on evidence which is not admissible and therefore may not be considered at the summary judgment stage. Plaintiffs’ response is irredeemable and should be stricken in its entirety for violating L.R. 56.1. " 

[Euler]

Defendants responded to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The outline is as follows:

 

Response said:

I. Plaintiffs cannot sustain their burden in step one under Bruen.

a. Plaintiffs cannot establish that Assault Weapons are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.

b. The Regulated Weapons are not in common use for a lawful purpose.

i. Plaintiffs cite no binding precedent that Assault Weapons must be considered common.

ii. Possession and popularity do not establish "common use."

iii. Plaintiffs present insufficient evidence that the Regulated Weapons are "used" for a lawful purpose like self-defense.

c. Weapons that are dangerous and unusual are not protected.

II. Plaintiffs ignore the Second Step of the Bruen Analysis.

[... wherein the defendants argue that the existence of "assault weapons" themselves has no precedent ...]

III. Bruen does not abrogate binding Seventh Circuit Precedent.

IV. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment fails as it is not supported by admissible evidence.

 

"We're not ignoring Bruen. You are."

 

IMO it appears to be gas-lighting raised to an opus level.

[springfield shooter]

"Possession and popularity do not establish common use."

 

Then, pray tell, what DO they establish? Several million people have them, but no one uses them, doesn't sound like a rational argument.

[Flynn]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:16 PM, springfield shooter said:

"Possession and popularity do not establish common use."

 

Then, pray tell, what DO they establish? Several million people have them, but no one uses them, doesn't sound like a rational argument.

 

It's not rational, it's not logical, it's not even plausible, their entirely flawed argument is to ignore all other lawful uses (even though Heller/Bruen said the 2nd protects them all) and say that out of all the cases of self-defense AR-15s (or whatever) are not used that often for self defense, thus they are not "commonly used" for self-defense, the heck with all the other lawful uses that Heller/Bruen says are protected as well over and above self-defense.  Yes, their argument is full of 1001 holes, it's beyond flawed, it's mental gymnastics at the Olympic level but it's what they are trying to bluff the judges with as they have nothing else and are trying to avoid the history and tradition test that Heller/Bruen dictates.

[Euler]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:16 PM, springfield shooter said:

"Possession and popularity do not establish common use."

 

Then, pray tell, what DO they establish? Several million people have them, but no one uses them, doesn't sound like a rational argument.

 

In the text, they argue that possession and popularity imply only the intent to use them lawfully, not the actual lawful use of them. In other words, they require plaintiffs to prove "lawful" use rather than to infer it from "not criminal" use, since they might not be used at all. Unused weapons are subject to any restriction the government sees fit without hindrance, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to ownership/transfer/etc. of unused weapons.

 

Edited June 2, 2023 at 04:22 AM by Euler

[Flynn]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:19 PM, Euler said:

In the text, they argue that possession and popularity imply only the intent to use them lawfully

 

"possession" in itself is a lawful use 🤣

[davel501]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:50 PM, Flynn said:

 

"possession" in itself is a lawful use 🤣

 

^^^^THIS!!! 

[lilguy]

On 3/9/2023 at 11:44 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

I think they made an error in not raising Atkinson the COA could issue a ruling and do a dive into the New York analysis and set down a marker for the lower courts seeing the volume of litigation heading their way.

 

It seems like no one wants to be the 

court that sets us free. Around and around we go.

[Upholder]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:10 PM, Euler said:

IMO it appears to be gas-lighting raised to an opus level.

 

My reading of it is far less generous than that.  In my (non-lawyer) opinion, they are flat out lying to the court.

[Upholder]

For example, they are still attempting to interest balance, and cite Friedman's interest balancing as still being good law:

 

Quote

An assault weapons ban reduces fear
of these mass shootings just as historic gunpowder restrictions allowed the public to feel safe from
the threat of explosion. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir. 2015)
(“If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a
mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”)

 

[Bubbacs]

On and On and One we go and where we stop no body knows.  If anyone thinks they will follow and respect the laws as laid out you too have been brain washed.  After we are al gone this will still be a fight in the courts and the sides are now playing Pickleball and there will be NO winner!

[Euler]

On 6/2/2023 at 12:19 AM, Euler said:

In the text, they argue that possession and popularity imply only the intent to use them lawfully, not the actual lawful use of them. In other words, they require plaintiffs to prove "lawful" use rather than to infer it from "not criminal" use, since they might not be used at all. ...

 

On 6/2/2023 at 12:50 AM, Flynn said:

"possession" in itself is a lawful use 🤣

 

In a western liberal democracy (like the United States), everything non-criminal (for individuals) is lawful (for individuals). The lawful uses do not need to be enumerated.

[Silhouette]

For reference, the unlawful use of a weapon statute in Illinois deems mere possession in a vehicle to be a "use".  Similarly, mere purchase of an assault weapon is a "use."  I hope CA7 or SCOTUS doesn't entertain this mincing of words that these firearms are not in use.

[Upholder]

 

[Tango7]

On 6/2/2023 at 10:37 AM, Upholder said:

 

My reading of it is far less generous than that.  In my (non-lawyer) opinion, they are flat out lying to the court.

 

Lying, From this fair state?

 

We're dealing with a government that has repeatedly intentionally delayed cases involving determining the age at which someone can be considered an "adult" capable of requesting their own (unconstitutional) "Mother, may I please?" FOID card until the plaintiffs lose standing - even though they were fully within their rights when the case was initiated rather than fighting them on legal merits.

 

A government that had a sworn law enforcement officer sit in front of a legislative committee and testify that the then governor's amendatory veto language should stand because in his opinion people would spend 16 hours of their life in class, then spend the 2nd highest application fee in the nation simply to go into an establishment and drink to intoxication while armed.

 

The same sworn law enforcement officer, his colleague and their supervisor also signed witness statements in favor of said veto using their state issued email accounts and identified themselves as state employees while doing so.

 

A government that fought allowing ordinary citizens an effective means of self defense in public using the excuse "they could under their authority, it might make people safer and it's not nonsensical" in the face of 35 other states moving from "may issue" or "non issue" to "shall issue" with no increase in illegal gun use or wrongful shootings.

 

A government whose chamber leader utilized political pressure to deny citizens the right to carry by changing enough votes to avoid a supermajority in 2011.

 

A government with a history of multiple governors who, knowing the process required to own firearm or ammunition in this state, willfully reduced the number of employees of the sole agency to process the permits required to exercise that right by over 50%.

 

A government whose lead law enforcement official utilized state resources to harass lawful merchants in other states, requiring them to abide by their interpretation of Illinois law and threatening them with legal action - at taxpayer expense - if they failed to comply.

 

There's a phrase in criminal law called "the totality of the circumstances". One action or event might not be significant, but A + B + C + D + E = something happening. 

 

Anyone from outside could see the pattern of behavior and the complete and callous disregard the majority of the elected and appointed officials have for our 2A Rights. It's a shame they cannot be held accountable for their actions under 18 U.S. Code § 242.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 6/3/2023 at 3:31 PM, Upholder said:

 

But it's not major breaking news and that's the only problem i have with half these guys who use sensation to get clicks. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 6/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

But it's not major breaking news and that's the only problem i have with half these guys who use sensation to get clicks. 

To much noise, I don't need a review of the last 100 videos, get to the point.