Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Morse V Raoul, filed today, challenging suppressor ban in IL

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.93705/gov.uscourts.ilsd.93705.1.0.pdf

 

 

Docket

 

 

 

[Molly B.]

🙂

[Euler]

Filed in Federal District Court of Southern Illinois

(Docket)

 

Edited November 26, 2022 at 05:31 AM by Euler

[Euler]

Complaint said:

...

Under the Second Amendment, the Defendants retains the ability presumptively to regulate the manner of carrying arms and may prohibit certain arms in narrowly defined sensitive places, prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment's protection such as "dangerous and unusual" arms, and disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying arms.

 

The phrase dangerous and unusual weapons historically refers to time, place and manner restrictions on arms. See Page, Daniel Richard, Dangerous and Unusual Misdirection: A Look at the Common Law Tradition of Prohibiting Going Armed with Dangerous and Unusual Weapons to the Terror of the People, as Cited in District of Columbia versus Heller. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1859395 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1859395

 

Therefore, a suppressor is not dangerous and unusual and the mere ownership of a suppressor cannot constitute the ownership of a dangerous and unusual item.

 

Given the decision in Heller, Defendants may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense that are typically possessed for lawful purposes, deny individuals the right to carry arms in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to keep or carry arms in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to keep and carry arms that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

...

Suppressors are arms in common use for self-defense by civilians as well as by law enforcement.

 

Suppressors are legal for ordinary individuals to own, possess, and use for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, and target practice, in a supermajority of states (42).

 

Likewise, there are no historical analogues banning suppressors, and suppressors were not regulated at the federal level until the enactment of the National Firearms Act, which did not ban them, but instead subjected them to a tax, background, and registration scheme.

...

Illinois has a complete ban on the purchase, possession, hunting, self-defense usage, or any other type of usage of a suppressor in Illinois for an average, law-abiding Illinois citizen. Illinois' ban on suppressors lacks a plainly legitimate sweep.

...

Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows:

1. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning and banning the acquisition, possession, carrying or use of suppressors;
2. An order declaring that 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning suppressors is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;
3. An order declaring 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) and any other applicable law which prohibits Plaintiffs from owning suppressors unenforceable;

...

[2smartby1/2]

🥰

[Molly B.]

 

 

Nice!

[solareclipse2]

So this is pretty cut and dry and we should be able to get our suppressors soon right?

[mikew]

It took two years for McDonald to follow Heller, and the suit was filed within 30 days of the SCOTUS ruling for Heller.

[Southsider009]

On 11/25/2022 at 11:31 PM, Euler said:

Filed in Federal District Court of Southern Illinois

(Docket)

 

Whatever side loses will most likely appeal the case to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th district.  What makes me nervous is that they have made anti gun rulings in the past....

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/04/28/7th-circuit-upholds-highland-parks-assault-weapons-ban/
 

And after that our Supreme Court has even rejected cases.

 

https://abc7chicago.com/amp/deerfield-assault-weapons-ban-illinois-supreme-court-justices-il/11252960/

 

I'm hoping we  win and the Bruen decision helps us out but at the same time...I'm not holding my breath.

 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Soon is very relative. 2-3 years more likely.

[davel501]

I wish they had also asked for damages for hearing loss. You should not have to accept physical injury as part of the exercise of any enumerated right. 

 

I guess we can all file a class action lawsuit once the law is found unconstitutional. 

[Euler]

On December 9, the judge referred the case to mediation and scheduled a trial for June 17, 2024, in East St. Louis.

 

Referring a case to mediation means that the judge is essentially ordering the parties to reach an out-of-court settlement, but if that fails then there's still a trial.

 

I'm not sure how a private agreement between the parties achieves any pro-2A end. It's not like Raoul has the power to declare the suppressor ban unconstitutional himself.

[davel501]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:24 PM, Euler said:

I'm not sure how a private agreement between the parties achieves any pro-2A end. It's not like Raoul has the power to declare the suppressor ban unconstitutional himself.

 

Couldn't the state choose not to defend the law, allowing it to be struck down? 

[Euler]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:25 PM, davel501 said:

Couldn't the state choose not to defend the law, allowing it to be struck down? 

 

Ordinarily, I'd say no. The state has a duty to defend all of its laws. However, in the second Miller v Bonta case, Bonta said he's "not prepared" to defend the constitutionality of the civil fee-shifting law. (Individuals who sue the state have to pay the entire state's legal bill if any claim of their complaint fails, even if other claims succeed.)

 

Basically what you're asking is if the AG can enter into a consent decree that stipulates that a law is unconstitutional. That would seem bizarre to me. Usually consent decrees go in the other direction, i.e., the state makes the other side knuckle under.

 

IANAL

[davel501]

To quote a former governor: "we've got this thing and it's f'n golden". 

 

The state has never had to defend an infringement of a "super charged right" before. 

[Flynn]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:24 PM, Euler said:

On December 9, the judge referred the case to mediation and scheduled a trial for June 17, 2024, in East St. Louis.

 

Another kick the can down the road judge that doesn't have the spine to rule on the law, a civil rights violation of the entire citizenship of the state can't be settled by mediation by one aggrieved person, for *&^$%-sake!

[Molly B.]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:24 PM, Euler said:

 scheduled a trial for June 17, 2024???

 

 

 

[Euler]

On 12/17/2022 at 12:24 AM, Molly B. said:

 

On 12/16/2022 at 10:24 PM, Euler said:

 scheduled a trial for June 17, 2024???

 

There's no typo there. Apparently he's giving them plenty of time not to agree to terms before there's a trial.

 

Edited December 17, 2022 at 05:30 AM by Euler

[Flynn]

On 12/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, Euler said:

 

There's no typo there. Apparently he's giving them plenty of time not to agree to terms before there's a trial.

 

 

He is giving himself plenty of time to not rule like he knows he must under Bruen, all I can figure is the judge doesn't want to be the one that makes the big first ruling in Illinois, so he squirming out of that by kicking the can, hoping that in the next year and a half, the mediation will result in the lawsuit being dropped because another judge gave relief in a different case, or the legislature makes some draconian law that allow suppressor ownership resulting in this case being moot and requiring a new challenge based on the draconian rules not the prohibition.

 

This is nothing short of an activist judge refusing to do their job because they don't like how they must rule as to not be white glove slapped on appeal.

[solareclipse2]

How does scheduling a trial for over a year out not violate the right to a speedy trial?

[Craigcr2]

On 12/17/2022 at 8:43 AM, solareclipse2 said:

How does scheduling a trial for over a year out not violate the right to a speedy trial?

The 6th Amendment’s guarantee applies to criminal trials. 

[JTHunter]

On 12/17/2022 at 10:23 AM, Craigcr2 said:

The 6th Amendment’s guarantee applies to criminal trials. 

 

Infringement of civil rights by politicians SHOULD be a criminal offense.

[TargetCollector]

This sort of thing is exactly what worries me in the AWB cases.  I wonder how many of these judges will simply find ways to avoid the rulings they know they have to make, hoping the landscape somehow changes and that they can get away with letting things like this stand.

[cybermgk]

On 1/20/2023 at 11:06 AM, TargetCollector said:

This sort of thing is exactly what worries me in the AWB cases.  I wonder how many of these judges will simply find ways to avoid the rulings they know they have to make, hoping the landscape somehow changes and that they can get away with letting things like this stand.

there are potential temporary remedies though with the AWB.  AWB is a much more massive infringement of rights that also makes people potentially instant criminals for stuff they legally owned before.  Not so much with the suppressor.  IF any court puts a trial out into the way future, on the AWB cases, then it increases our ability to get a TRO against them.

[Upholder]

Second amended complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.93705/gov.uscourts.ilsd.93705.42.0.pdf

[Euler]

On February 9, the judge set a preliminary schedule.

 

Stipulation Selecting Mediator to be filed by 3/3/2023.

Mandatory Mediation Session to be completed by 12/22/2023.

Discovery due by 1/22/2024.

Mandatory Mediation Program Completion due by 2/6/2024.

Dispositive Motions due by 2/22/2024.

 

Recall that:

On 12/16/2022 at 10:24 PM, Euler said:

On December 9, the judge referred the case to mediation and scheduled a trial for June 17, 2024, in East St. Louis.

...

 

FYI: The judge is a Trump appointee.

[Caveman2021]

really should be revisited sooner.. honestly this was prolly pushed out just so "he could see" how the AWB was gonna go.. but then got pushed out overnight.

[Southsider009]

On February 27th, the American Suppressor Association Foundation (ASA-F) and Silencer Shop helped file a lawsuit against the State of Illinois, alleging that Illinois’ ban on suppressor ownership and possession is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. 

https://suppressor.org/litigation/?mc_cid=e96d5ede6d&mc_eid=40efa60394

Edited February 28, 2023 at 05:05 AM by Southsider009

[Upholder]

That case has a thread:

 

 

[Euler]

On 12/16/2022 at 10:24 PM, Euler said:

On December 9, the judge referred the case to mediation and scheduled a trial for June 17, 2024, in East St. Louis.

...

 

On 2/16/2023 at 12:42 AM, Euler said:

On February 9, the judge set a preliminary schedule.

 

Stipulation Selecting Mediator to be filed by 3/3/2023.

Mandatory Mediation Session to be completed by 12/22/2023.

Discovery due by 1/22/2024.

Mandatory Mediation Program Completion due by 2/6/2024.

Dispositive Motions due by 2/22/2024.

...

 

On March 2, Raoul filed a joint motion (i.e., with the agreement of Morse) to opt out of mandatory mediation.

 

Motion said:

...

Good cause exists in this case to allow the parties to opt out of mandatory mediation at this point.

 

In this case, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of laws and policies prohibiting firearm suppressors (silencers).

...

Defendants have filed Answers and Affirmative Defenses, in which they deny the relief requested and specifically deny the laws and policies prohibiting firearm suppressors violates the Second Amendment.

...

 

So no one wants to wait until 2024. The parties were supposed to select a mediator by March 3 (today). "We don't wanna" is what the judge got instead. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 at 12:40 AM by Euler