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.