Schoenthal v. Raoul - State Wins 7th Circuit Appeal Judgement Against Carry Ban on Public Transportation

[Euler]

On 4/22/2023 at 4:26 PM, Molly B. said:

I have been waiting 10 years for this case.  Sadly, I guess I can wait one more...

 

INB4 extensions ...

[Euler]

On 4/22/2023 at 2:50 PM, Euler said:

On April 17, there was a status hearing. The schedule for this case is now:

 

5/1/2023: Amended pleadings, new counts or parties, and third-party complaints due

7/1/2023: Summary disclosure of expert witness verbal testimony due

8/1/2023: Supplemental materials for disclosures due

9/1/2023: Fact discovery closes

10/1/2023: Disclosure of expert witness written testimony due

10/31/2023: All discovery closes

12/4/2023: Dispositive motions due

1/16/2024: Responses to motions due

2/6/2024: Replies to responses due

[No doubt some of those dispositive motions will be for dismissal and summary judgment.]

 

May 1 came and went. There were no new filings.

 

I predict July 1 will be much the same. (Shuffle. Shuffle. Shuffle.)

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Order of confidentiality on discovery items issued yesterday.  

 

I haven't seen this before. Any idea why that is?  

[Euler]

It's pretty common. Discovery could (and probably will) document personal, private information from any number of sources.

[yurimodin]

This "ban" is total BS anyway......my right to self defense doesn't end where public funding begins. If anything It should be illegal to prohibit legal carry there since public property is considered collective personal property of the citizens in many states.

[Euler]

On 4/22/2023 at 2:50 PM, Euler said:

On April 17, there was a status hearing. The schedule for this case is now:
...
9/1/2023: Fact discovery closes
10/1/2023: Disclosure of expert witness written testimony due
10/31/2023: All discovery closes
12/4/2023: Dispositive motions due
1/16/2024: Responses to motions due
2/6/2024: Replies to responses due
...

On August 29, the judge adjusted the schedule based on a joint motion by the parties.

9/22/2023: Fact discovery closes
10/23/2023: Disclosure of expert witness written testimony due
11/20/2023: All discovery closes
12/29/2023: Dispositive motions due
2/9/2024: Responses to motions due
3/1/2024: Replies to responses due

Additionally
4/21/2024: Any other case management documents due

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Foxx is seeking a stay pending Rahimi.

[davel501]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:14 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Foxx is seeking a stay pending Rahimi.

 

Curious how she thinks that case is related to this one.

[Euler]

Maybe she intends to cite it as an authority if Rahimi loses.

... and it's still not related ...

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Closed mouths don't get fed. Throw enough poop on the wall and some of it will stick. Whether it is related or not, the longer she can delay her loss, that's a win for her. 

[Euler]

On October 24, 2023 at 08:14 AM CDT, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:→

Foxx is seeking a stay pending Rahimi.

She requested that stay on October 23.

On October 24, the judge set the following schedule.

Nov 7: plaintiffs' response due
Nov 15: defendants' reply due

[Euler]

On August 30, 2023 at 04:19 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On August 29, the judge adjusted the schedule based on a joint motion by the parties.

9/22/2023: Fact discovery closes
10/23/2023: Disclosure of expert witness written testimony due
11/20/2023: All discovery closes
12/29/2023: Dispositive motions due
2/9/2024: Responses to motions due
3/1/2024: Replies to responses due

Additionally
4/21/2024: Any other case management documents due

On December 7, Kim Foxx moved to delay the due date for dispositive motions to January 29. The plaintiffs have agreed not to oppose.

[mab22]

On 12/8/2023 at 6:24 PM, Euler said:

On December 7, Kim Foxx moved to delay the due date for dispositive motions to January 29. The plaintiffs have agreed not to oppose.

Is there some reason the plaintiffs NEVER oppose extensions?

It appears that every time the defense wants an extension it is granted and cases just get pushed further and further down the road.

[ragsbo]

On 12/8/2023 at 11:07 PM, mab22 said:

Is there some reason the plaintiffs NEVER oppose extensions?

It appears that every time the defense wants an extension it is granted and cases just get pushed further and further down the road.

Something I would like to know too! Judge should hold them to the time frame and if they are not ready, move on with out it

[Flynn]

On 12/8/2023 at 11:07 PM, mab22 said:

Is there some reason the plaintiffs NEVER oppose extensions?

It appears that every time the defense wants an extension it is granted and cases just get pushed further and further down the road.

 

On 12/9/2023 at 5:13 PM, ragsbo said:

Something I would like to know too! Judge should hold them to the time frame and if they are not ready, move on with out it

 

Because there is probably about a 9 in 10 chance the judge is going to grant the extension to the government when they are the defendants even if the plaintiff objects...  Thus for the plaintiff, the objection to an extension when suing the government is almost always a waste of money and time, so they just agree to the same likely outcome...

 

Like it or not, the courts will almost always entertain the government's request for extensions, it's just the way it is...

[Euler]

On October 27, 2023 at 06:41 PM CST, Euler said:→

On October 24, 2023 at 08:14 AM CDT, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:→

Foxx is seeking a stay pending Rahimi.

She requested that stay on October 23.

On October 24, the judge set the following schedule.

Nov 7: plaintiffs' response due
Nov 15: defendants' reply due

On December 8, 2023 at 06:24 PM CST, Euler said:→

On December 7, Kim Foxx moved to delay the due date for dispositive motions to January 29. The plaintiffs have agreed not to oppose.

On December 13, the judge denied the motion for a stay. He granted the motion for an extension. The schedule is now:

1/29/2024: Dispositive motions due
3/11/2024: Responses to motions due
4/3/2024: Replies to responses due

The following deadline is apparently unchanged:
4/21/2024: Any other case management documents due

[Euler]

With dispositive motions due today, on Friday (January 26) Kim Foxx submitted a motion to file an unspecified document under seal. The defendants intend to include information from deposition of the plaintiffs which the plaintiffs' attorney has designated as confidential.

[Euler]

On January 29, defendants filed lots of documents from depositions, including some under seal. The judge allowed the sealed documents, but warned that if the material under seal became relevant to a decision that the documents would become unsealed, since the public would have a right to know all the relevant information. Additionally, defendants moved for summary judgment, to which the plaintiffs agreed.

Among the documents submitted as exhibits is Charles Dickens' American Notes, which he wrote in 1842 while visiting the United States. Dickens liked the northeast, particularly Boston. He disliked the US in general, however. He disliked slavery. He considered Americans to be gratuitously violent. Combining gratuitously violent with rampantly commercial and individualistic to the point of paranoia, he considered Americans to be basically thinly veiled, criminal savages. He also considered Americans to be unhygienic. ... and Kim Foxx apparently thinks it's evidence to support a ban on firearms on public transportation.

Defendants appear to have submitted the Tennessee Army-Navy law as an exhibit. Southern states couldn't explicitly prohibit newly-freed slaves from buying firearms, so they prohibited non-veterans from buying affordable firearms. The effect was the same. I doubt that defendants concede that it's okay for Caucasian military veterans to carry on public transportation, but no one else.

There's a boatload of stuff. If you're curious, check out he docket for all of it. Maybe they're attempting to drown the plaintiffs with paper.

[mab22]

On 1/30/2024 at 6:04 AM, Euler said:

On January 29, defendants filed lots of documents from depositions, including some under seal. The judge allowed the sealed documents, but warned that if the material under seal became relevant to a decision that the documents would become unsealed, since the public would have a right to know all the relevant information. Additionally, defendants moved for summary judgment, to which the plaintiffs agreed.

Among the documents submitted as exhibits is Charles Dickens' American Notes, which he wrote in 1842 while visiting the United States. Dickens liked the northeast, particularly Boston. He disliked the US in general, however. He disliked slavery. He considered Americans to be gratuitously violent. Combining gratuitously violent with rampantly commercial and individualistic to the point of paranoia, he considered Americans to be basically thinly veiled, criminal savages. He also considered Americans to be unhygienic. ... and Kim Foxx apparently thinks it's evidence to support a ban on firearms on public transportation.

Defendants appear to have submitted the Tennessee Army-Navy law as an exhibit. Southern states couldn't explicitly prohibit newly-freed slaves from buying firearms, so they prohibited non-veterans from buying affordable firearms. The effect was the same. I doubt that defendants concede that it's okay for Caucasian military veterans to carry on public transportation, but no one else.

There's a boatload of stuff. If you're curious, check out he docket for all of it. Maybe they're attempting to drown the plaintiffs with paper.

If it's "hourly contract attorneys", I'll take Bill padding for $500!

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

If it wasn't "relevant" to the discussion why submit it? 

Sounds like anything sealed is relavant or can be by mentioning any part of it even if the claim it's not relavant to the case, it now is.  Touch on everything and bring everything out in the open. 

 

Isn't the army-navy law one of the many reasons for the 14th?

[Euler]

The Army-Navy law was an attempt to get around 14A. 14A was adopted in 1868. The first Army-Navy law was passed in 1870.

[Euler]

On December 13, 2023 at 08:07 PM CST, Euler said:→

... The schedule is now:

1/29/2024: Dispositive motions due
3/11/2024: Responses to motions due
4/3/2024: Replies to responses due

The following deadline is apparently unchanged:
4/21/2024: Any other case management documents due

On February 26, the judge granted another extension.

3/25/2024: Responses to motions due
4/17/2024: Replies to responses due

[John Q Public]

I think 2yrs should be ample time for a right denied. I'm so sick of this crap I could vomit.

[JTHunter]

On 3/2/2024 at 1:49 PM, John Q Public said:

I think 2yrs should be ample time for a right denied. I'm so sick of this crap I could vomit.

 

Join the crowd.

[mab22]

On 3/2/2024 at 1:49 PM, John Q Public said:

I think 2yrs should be ample time for a right denied. I'm so sick of this crap I could vomit.

 

On 3/3/2024 at 8:38 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Join the crowd.

 

Depends on the case type, but there may be time "suggestions" on how long they get to "Richard" around with the case.

Time Standards for Case Closure in the Illinois Trial Courts - https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/a15897fc-92a2-43af-9838-add108d077bc/Time Standards for Case Closure Policy.pdf

 

[Upholder]

On Monday, 3/25/2024, Cross motions by the Plaintiffs and Defendants opposing each other's Summary Judgement motions were filed:

 

• State Parties’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment 2024.03.25_084_State_D's_Opposition_to_P's_(PFC)_MSJ.pdf
• Defendant Foxx’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement 2024.03.25_086_D_Foxx's_Opposition_to_P's_(FPC)_MSJ.pdf
• Plaintiffs’ Combined Opposition to Defendants’ Cross-motions for Summary Judgment 2024.03.25_087_P's_(FPC)_Opposition_to_D's_MSJ.pdf

 

 

Edited March 26, 2024 at 06:00 PM by Upholder
Attach files, not accessible when linked from outside FPC's website.

[Upholder]

Wednesday 4/17/2024, a number of filings were made by both sides:

• 92 - REPLY by Plaintiffs Benjamin Schoenthal, Joseph Vesel, Douglas Winston, Mark Wroblewski to response in opposition to motion 86, memorandum in opposition to motion 84, motion for summary judgment 69 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 1 LAWS OF NEW YORK (Websters & Skinner 2d ed. 1807) (corrected), # 2 Exhibit B - JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Richmond, Thomas W. White 1828) (corrected), # 3 Exhibit C - Plaintiffs' F.R. Civ. P. 26 Initial Disclosures)(Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document, Exhibit A - 1 LAWS OF NEW YORK (Websters & Skinner 2d ed. 1807) (corrected), Exhibit B - JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Exhibit C - Plaintiffs' F.R. Civ. P. 26 Initial Disclosures
• 93 - RULE 56 F.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A),(B); L.R. 56.1(c)(2) Statement by Benjamin Schoenthal, Joseph Vesel, Douglas Winston, Mark Wroblewski regarding motion for summary judgment 63 (Response To State Defendants' SJ Statement of Additional Material Facts) (Dkt. #83)) (Sigale, David) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document
• 94 - REPLY by Rick Amato, Robert Berlin, Kwame Raoul, Eric Rinehart to MOTION by Defendants Rick Amato, Robert Berlin, Eric Rinehart, Kwame Raoul for summary judgment 63, response in opposition to motion,, 87 (Freilich Jones, Isaac) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document
• 95 - REPLY by Defendant Kimberly M. Foxx to motion for summary judgment 67 in Support of Motion (Scheller, Jessica) (Entered: 04/17/2024) Main Document

 

[Molly B.]

https://saf.org/plaintiffs-file-brief-in-challenge-of-illinois-public-transit-carry-ban/

 

BELLEVUE, WA – Plaintiffs in a federal challenge of the Illinois Public Transit carry ban have filed a brief in support of their earlier motion for summary judgment in the case, which is financially supported by the Second Amendment Foundation.

 

The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul and is currently in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Plaintiffs are Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel, and Douglas Winston. They are represented by attorney David G. Sigale of Lombard, Ill. The defendants are Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County) and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities.

“As noted in the brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “this case asserts the Illinois Public Transportation carry ban cannot stand unless it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation at the time of the ratification of the right to keep and bear arms. It is abundantly clear the defendants can’t provide such information, and in their response, they have failed to offer any Founding-era evidence supporting the ban.”

 

In other states with licensed concealed carry, legally-armed private citizens can utilize public transportation. Illinois, however, continues to cling to a restriction which has no historic legal foundation. It simply denies the right to bear arms arbitrarily to anyone using public transportation because of state government’s long-standing revulsion toward firearms and the Second Amendment, Gottlieb said.

 

“This ban clearly violates the Second Amendment,” he observed, “which the defendants should realize, since the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states via the 14^th Amendment in a case they’re all familiar with, McDonald v. City of Chicago. SAF won that case at the Supreme Court in 2010, nullifying Chicago’s handgun ban.”

[Euler]

On March 25, defendant Foxx filed a motion to sanction plaintiffs for incomplete discovery under the rules of civil procedure.

Plaintiffs failed to disclose all the historical sources that they cite to make their case. They argue that they were not required to disclose their historical sources, because the burden of historical analysis is on the government under Bruen.

On May 1, the judge ruled on the motion.

The burden of proof on the government does not absolve the plaintiffs of their obligation to comply with discovery. While ordinarily sanctions could mean that plaintiffs' previously undisclosed sources could be excluded from trial, the judge instead allowed defendants until May 15 to examine the sources, at the expense of the plaintiffs. On May 15, the defendants have the option of requesting another 30 days to continue their examination of the sources, which will also be at the plaintiffs' expense. If after their review, the defendants decide that they do not need to revise their responses, then the judge will proceed on the motions for summary judgment directly.

I pretty much expect that Foxx will ask for another 30 days and that Foxx will revise her responses. I think plaintiffs dodged a bullet, even though it still grazed them.

Edited May 4, 2024 at 01:03 AM by Euler

[JTHunter]

Euler - Thanks for keeping these cases so up to date.