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

[Upholder]

In the Cook County's Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement filed June 1:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.116.0.pdf

 

They say again that semi-auto vs full auto is not a distinguishing factor:

Quote

Plaintiffs
point to differences between automatic weapons and semi-automatic rifles (Pls. Mem. at 13) but
ignore the fact that other than rate of fire, the M-16 and AR-15 share the same performance
characteristics in terms of muzzle velocity, range, and type of ammunition. (ECF 82, chart, at 7.)

 

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is true: There is no legal or practical difference between semi-auto and full auto weapons. 

 

How do they then justify the ban impacting handguns they have been so insistent upon: Glock Switches -- they are handguns, that even in this brief they acknowledge are protected under the 2nd amendment following Heller..

 

Also, how does a threaded barrel (a much more trivial difference) cause handguns to be excluded from that protection?

 

Their arguments are word salad.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 at 02:17 PM by Upholder
Correct date of filing

[Flynn]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:16 AM, Upholder said:

They say again that semi-auto vs full auto is not a distinguishing factor:

 

 

They are arguing that the NFA is unconstitutional 😁

[mab22]

On 6/6/2023 at 4:54 PM, Flynn said:

 

 

They are arguing that the NFA is unconstitutional 😁

[Upholder]

Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgement:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.118.0.pdf

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 at 01:33 AM by Upholder
correct typo

[Flynn]

On 6/13/2023 at 8:18 PM, Upholder said:

Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgement:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666/gov.uscourts.ilnd.406666.118.0.pdf

 

 

I like this being added in plain text "a firearm’s military utility is not the test for whether it is protected" as that is their current goto argument to justify bans, so maybe an honest judge will put an end to that.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Highland park filed a motion to reassign, the motion today was denied.

The City of Highland Park asks that all of the cases be assigned to the district judge able to rule most promptly (Highland Park’s Supplemental Brief [94], at 5), and suggests that is likely to be District Judge Kendall. But Judge Kendall’s ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 22 C 4775 , and that of District Judge Jenkins in Herrera v. Raoul, No. 23 C 532, denying preliminary injunctions, are on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit has heard oral argument,  and its ruling may well have substantial influence on, or control, this one. Indeed, in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay, the court specifically noted its intention to reconsider whether a stay is appropriate after the Seventh Circuit rules. Order [88], at 2. The court makes the same determination now. The posture may well be different after the Seventh Circuit rules. For now, however, the court recognizes its responsibility to decide the case before it, including the pending motions. This one [54] is denied without prejudice.

[JTHunter]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:00 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Highland park filed a motion to reassign, the motion today was denied.

The City of Highland Park asks that all of the cases be assigned to the district judge able to rule most promptly (Highland Park’s Supplemental Brief [94], at 5), and suggests that is likely to be District Judge Kendall. But Judge Kendall’s ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 22 C 4775 , and that of District Judge Jenkins in Herrera v. Raoul, No. 23 C 532, denying preliminary injunctions, are on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit has heard oral argument,  and its ruling may well have substantial influence on, or control, this one. Indeed, in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay, the court specifically noted its intention to reconsider whether a stay is appropriate after the Seventh Circuit rules. Order [88], at 2. The court makes the same determination now. The posture may well be different after the Seventh Circuit rules. For now, however, the court recognizes its responsibility to decide the case before it, including the pending motions. This one [54] is denied without prejudice.

 

As IANAL, please simplify.  Who got the stay?

[Euler]

Nobody got a stay. Plaintiffs had filed a motion to stay the Viramontes proceedings (about the Cook County ordinance) while the Bevis proceedings (against the Naperville ordinance and eventually state statute) were underway. The judge denied the stay, saying that the laws being challenged are different laws, even though they are all AWBs.

Now the City of Highland Park was asking to consolidate Goldman with Viramontes. The judge referred back to the motion to stay, because she's denying consolidation for the same reasons. Highland Park's ordinance is not Cook County's ordinance, even though both are AWBs.

Highland Park had previously tried to consolidate Goldman with Bevis, and no one went for it. Highland Park really seems to want to dump their case off on someone else. I'm pretty sure Highland Park isn't spending any money on it, just like Naperville wasn't spending any money on Bevis. The defendants' law firms are donating their time to defend the laws.

[mab22]

On 9/29/2023 at 6:35 PM, Euler said:

Nobody got a stay. Plaintiffs had filed a motion to stay the Viramontes proceedings (about the Cook County ordinance) while the Bevis proceedings (against the Naperville ordinance and eventually state statute) were underway. The judge denied the stay, saying that the laws being challenged are different laws, even though they are all AWBs.

Now the City of Highland Park was asking to consolidate Goldman with Viramontes. The judge referred back to the motion to stay, because she's denying consolidation for the same reasons. Highland Park's ordinance is not Cook County's ordinance, even though both are AWBs.

Highland Park had previously tried to consolidate Goldman with Bevis, and no one went for it. Highland Park really seems to want to dump their case off on someone else. I'm pretty sure Highland Park isn't spending any money on it, just like Naperville wasn't spending any money on Bevis. The defendants' law firms are donating their time to defend the laws.

Do we have the Goldman case listed?

Curious how you someone can ADD to the case load in Goldman, sounds like they don't really want to play?

[Euler]

Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion > Goldman v Highland Park - AWB

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Saw on Pacer today that the Chicago Board of Rabbis is to file an amicus brief in Viramontes. Given the happenings in Israel, I am very curious to read that brief. Any speculation on their leanings? 

[solareclipse2]

On 10/31/2023 at 10:27 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Saw on Pacer today that the Chicago Board of Rabbis is to file an amicus brief in Viramontes. Given the happenings in Israel, I am very curious to read that brief. Any speculation on their leanings? 

 

If there's ever a group of people that should be against civil disarmament, it should be the Jewish. 

[steveTA84]

On 10/31/2023 at 10:27 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Saw on Pacer today that the Chicago Board of Rabbis is to file an amicus brief in Viramontes. Given the happenings in Israel, I am very curious to read that brief. Any speculation on their leanings? 

They will come out in favor of the ban (maybe not the orthodox and conservatives). I hope I’m wrong though 

Edited October 31, 2023 at 07:30 PM by steveTA84

[Euler]

On October 31, 2023 at 10:27 AM CDT, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:→

Saw on Pacer today that the Chicago Board of Rabbis is to file an amicus brief in Viramontes. Given the happenings in Israel, I am very curious to read that brief. Any speculation on their leanings?

They applied for permission to file the brief back on March 10 (docket entry 90). They filed a draft of the brief at that time. They might update it a bit.

If you use PACER, it is worthwhile to install the RECAP web extension, so other people have free CourtListener access to whatever you view.

[Euler]

On November 6, Cook County filed the CA7 decision (staying the preliminary injunction) on Barnett as a supplemental authority.

[Euler]

On February 5, the judge noted that CA7 has ruled that a similar, but not identical, AWB was upheld (i.e., Bevis et al.). She is ready to rule similarly on this case, but orders the plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days (by February 26) why she should not do so based on any differences between Cook County's ban and PICA.

Edited February 7, 2024 at 07:11 AM by Euler

[mab22]

So if it gets reversed by SCOTUS, would they have to refile and start over again? 

[Euler]

Once a case is settled, it's done. Otherwise litigants could just file the same case over and over and over for every case forever.

[Euler]

On February 7, 2024 at 01:11 AM CST, Euler said:→

On February 5, the judge noted that CA7 has ruled that a similar, but not identical, AWB was upheld (i.e., Bevis et al.). She is ready to rule similarly on this case, but orders the plaintiffs to show cause within 21 days (by February 26) why she should not do so based on any differences between Cook County's ban and PICA.

On February 23, Kim Foxx filed (IMO) a somewhat bizarre brief to show cause why the judge should not dismiss the case. She argues that the Cook County statute is stricter than the state statute, therefore the plaintiffs suffer redressable harm under the county statute that they do not under the state statute, which justifies not dismissing the case.

I suspect what she really wants is a judgment in favor of the county statute on its own merits, which she wouldn't get if the case were simply dismissed. She doesn't want the county statute to depend on PICA.

[JTHunter]

Fox's bombastic pomposity and arrogance is incredible. 🤮

[Upholder]

 

[Upholder]

Kostas Moros noted that if SCOTUS wants a final judgment before hearing a case, here is one.

[Upholder]

Final Judgment and order: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6277/attachments/original/1709314111/2024.03.01_129_OPINION.pdf?1709314111

[hetzen]

On 3/1/2024 at 12:54 PM, Upholder said:

Kostas Moros noted that if SCOTUS wants a final judgment before hearing a case, here is one.

 

Saw that. How is this final? Aren't there two steps of appeals possible? 

[yurimodin]

On 3/1/2024 at 12:54 PM, Upholder said:

 

I guess they don't realize that M16's are second amendment protected as well but unconstitutionally infringed.

[Upholder]

On 3/1/2024 at 1:33 PM, hetzen said:

Saw that. How is this final? Aren't there two steps of appeals possible? 

 

Final Judgement as opposed to interlocutory.  The district court judge has made a decision on the "merits of the case".

[tricolor]

On 3/1/2024 at 1:13 PM, Upholder said:

Final Judgment and order: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6277/attachments/original/1709314111/2024.03.01_129_OPINION.pdf?1709314111

 

Bevis and Friedman, which are now binding precedent in this circuit, are the final nails in our coffin in this state - what a shame.  I imagine this order is going to be exactly how mcglynn rules as well, he can't simply ignore what the 7th Circuit has already done

[hetzen]

On 3/1/2024 at 2:01 PM, Upholder said:

 

Final Judgement as opposed to interlocutory.  The district court judge has made a decision on the "merits of the case".

 

I assume it is possible to appeal to SCOTUS after this, but does SCOTUS take cases that haven't gone through the appeals process?

[tricolor]

Not directly, it has to go through the 7th first.  Where Bevis is the binding precedent.  

[hetzen]

On 3/1/2024 at 2:32 PM, tricolor said:

Not directly, it has to go through the 7th first.  Where Bevis is the binding precedent.  

 

So this does nothing for us basically.