Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)

[Euler]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:36 PM, Euler said:

...

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

...

 

On March 6 (today), the judge granted the motion to opt out of mediation.

 

Order said:

...

... Thus, all parties agree that the case is an "all or nothing case", i.e. the parties will ask the Court to determine whether the law is unconstitutional or not, making no room for a middle position. ... The parties are thus EXCUSED from participation in the Mandatory Mediation Program and no further compliance with the mandatory mediation deadlines is required. ...

...

 

The next step will probably be to reformulate the schedule, since the last one was predicated on mediation.

[FarmHand357]

Nevermind; I missed the part about this being a joint motion.  IANL so wondered if by Raoul initiating this and the judge agreeing, even with Morse's concurrence does this still mean that granting the motion is potentially bad for us?

Edited March 7, 2023 at 02:52 AM by FarmHand357

[Euler]

On 3/6/2023 at 9:48 PM, FarmHand357 said:

Nevermind; I missed the part about this being a joint motion.  IANL so wondered if by Raoul initiating this and the judge agreeing, even with Morse's concurrence does this still mean that granting the motion is potentially bad for us?

 

Morse concurred because it's good for Morse (and us by extension). If Morse is going to win, it's better to win sooner.

 

Raoul could have tried to delay. There's no TRO or injunction, so the prohibition is in effect. Delaying would keep it in effect. Either Raoul wants to win faster, too, so he can spend his attention on something he thinks is more important, or he wants to put up a good fight, settle the issue by losing, and spend his attention on something he thinks is more important. Either way, Raoul is dealing with this case honestly (so far).

 

Rejoice.

[gunuser17]

I think that the bottom line is that the Court issued its standard scheduling order for all civil cases that always includes mediation.  I see no way to mediate an unconstitutionality claim unless all of the defendants are prepared to agree that the statute is unconstitutional.  Even then the court may have its own ideas and there would likely be intervention by the legislature to take over the defense.  Here, I am sure the plaintiffs were happy to let the state take the lead on the motion since it saved the plaintiffs a few dollars.   

[FarmHand357]

On 3/6/2023 at 9:32 PM, Euler said:

 

Morse concurred because it's good for Morse (and us by extension). If Morse is going to win, it's better to win sooner.

 

Raoul could have tried to delay. There's no TRO or injunction, so the prohibition is in effect. Delaying would keep it in effect. Either Raoul wants to win faster, too, so he can spend his attention on something he thinks is more important, or he wants to put up a good fight, settle the issue by losing, and spend his attention on something he thinks is more important. Either way, Raoul is dealing with this case honestly (so far).

 

Rejoice.

 

Much appreciation for the insight; I am!

[Helpdesk9]

Any updates on this case?

[Euler]

On 4/16/2023 at 4:17 PM, Helpdesk9 said:

Any updates on this case?

 

Nope

[Southsider009]

Another video.

 

 

[Euler]

On May 15, the state asked for an extension to respond to the plaintiffs' discovery.

 

There are no docket entries for discovery (what it was, when it was), because the judge has ordered that parties submit their discoveries to each other, but not to the court. Nevertheless, the rules of civil procedure give the each party a fixed time to respond after the opposing party submits discovery.

 

At least we know the case is still moving. Also the state is trying to slow it down.

 

Edited May 15, 2023 at 11:56 PM by Euler

[Flynn]

On 5/15/2023 at 6:55 PM, Euler said:

because the judge has ordered that parties submit their discoveries to each other, but not to the court.

 

That is really odd for a case that revolves around such an important topic such as a enumerated right, everything should be submitted to the court and be public records, so that there is no room for 'games' to be played!

[Euler]

I think each side can still submit whatever evidence it wants (including discovery) as evidence for the trial, which isn't unusual. It seems odd that the judge pointed it out on the docket, though.

[gunuser17]

Discovery materials are virtually never submitted to the court.  This is simply an exchange of documents and responses to various questions (interrogatories and requests for admissions).  The court has no where to store or handle thousands of pages of documents that are often exchanged in discovery.  The court only wants to ultimately see documents and other things that are used as actual evidence in summary judgment motions and at trial.

[Euler]

On 5/15/2023 at 7:55 PM, Euler said:

On May 15, the state asked for an extension to respond to the plaintiffs' discovery.

...

At least we know the case is still moving. Also the state is trying to slow it down.

 

On May 18. the judge denied the extension.

 

The story:

 

The overall discovery deadline is January 2024. Parties are to agree to a schedule on their own to respond to interrogatories and requests for production. Previously the plaintiffs had sent some interrogatories and requests for production to the defendants on March 17, and the defendants had agreed to respond by May 15. On May 15, the defendants asked the plaintiffs for more time. The plaintiffs did not agree, so the defendants asked the court. The plaintiffs contend that defendants are just trying to delay the whole case.

 

The judge chooses not to micromanage individual discoveries, therefore the judge declines to grant this particular extension. The judge encourages parties to work out their differences off the docket. However, if the defendants are unwilling to meet their mutually agreed deadlines, the judge will entertain a motion by the plaintiffs to compel the defendants to do so. In particular, the judge is unwilling to postpone the dates for trial and arguments (in 2024).

 

So from a certain point of view, nothing happened. From a different point of view, it was a rather spectacular nothing.

 

BTW: This case is in the Southern District. There might be a theme emerging ...

 

Edited May 19, 2023 at 09:58 PM by Euler

[Molly B.]

On 5/19/2023 at 4:54 PM, Euler said:

 

On May 18. the judge denied the extension.

 

So from a certain point of view, nothing happened. From a different point of view, it was a rather spectacular nothing.

 

 

Yes, indeedy!

[Euler]

On June 1, the judge ordered parties to file briefs by June 14 why Anderson v Raoul should or should not be consolidated with Morse.

 

The Anderson docket doesn't list such an order yet. Presumably the Anderson plaintiffs can file, as well.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Morse and anderson have been consolidated.

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), this matter is consolidated with the following case going forward: Anderson et al. v. Raoul et al. (Case No. 23-728-DWD). Rule 42(a)(2) allows this court to consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact. See also Hall v. Hall, 138 S.Ct. 1118 (S. Ct. 2018). Here, both cases raise a single Second Amendment challenge to section 24-1(a)(6) of the Illinois Criminal Code against state actors and the Illinois Attorney General such that the Court believes that both cases involve common questions of law. Further, all parties agree that consolidation is appropriate so long as the cases retain their own separate identities and the parties retain their independent rights. (Case No. 23-728, Docs. 45, 46, Case No. 22-2740, Docs. 62, 63); See, e.g. Hall, 138 S.Ct. at 1125 (Consolidation enables more efficient case management while preserving the distinct identities of the cases and rights of the separate parties in them). Thus, in the interest of fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy, the Court CONSOLDIATES Anderson et al. v. Raoul et al. (Case No. 23-728-DWD) with Morse et al. v. Raoul et al. (Case No. 22-2740-DWD). All future filings shall be filed in Morse et al. v. Raoul et al., Case No. 22-cv-2740-DWD. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/15/2023. (arm)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/15/2023)

Edited June 15, 2023 at 04:00 PM by AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

[Euler]

In conjunction with the consolidation, the judge has asked the Anderson parties if they can be ready for trial by the Morse date of June 17, 2024 (you know, in case they want the judge to postpone it).

 

It's a fair question, but personally I can only think of one party who would want to postpone it (indefinitely).

[JTHunter]

On 6/15/2023 at 1:46 PM, Euler said:

In conjunction with the consolidation, the judge has asked the Anderson parties if they can be ready for trial by the Morse date of June 17, 2024 (you know, in case they want the judge to postpone it).

 

It's a fair question, but personally I can only think of one party who would want to postpone it (indefinitely).

 

And why are they waiting a year??

[Euler]

On 6/17/2023 at 10:53 PM, JTHunter said:

And why are they waiting a year??

 

It's what the judge scheduled on December 9, 2022.

[MrTriple]

On 6/17/2023 at 10:44 PM, Euler said:

 

It's what the judge scheduled on December 9, 2022.

The AWB was one thing (a recently passed law that radically upset the status quo). The suppressor ban, as bad as it is, has been the status quo for a very long time. For the courts, the sense urgency is different.

 

We don't have to agree with that, but that's the logic.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

ILAG argues silencers aren't arms and asked for judgment...

CONCLUSION Silencers are not “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s plain text. Nor are they necessary to the effective use of such “Arms” for self-defense. Thus, silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment. For all these reasons, Defendants Kwame Raoul, Brendan F. Kelly, Craig Miller, and Bryan Robbins respectfully move the Court to enter judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

 

Personally speaking, I think they are NECESSARY for use for home defense. I shouldn't be forced to trade my hearing for my life, but that's what I'll be doing by shooting in an enclosed space, without a sound suppressor. 

[mauserme]

On 6/26/2023 at 1:31 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

ILAG argues silencers aren't arms and asked for judgment...

CONCLUSION Silencers are not “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s plain text. Nor are they necessary to the effective use of such “Arms” for self-defense. Thus, silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment. For all these reasons, Defendants Kwame Raoul, Brendan F. Kelly, Craig Miller, and Bryan Robbins respectfully move the Court to enter judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

 

Personally speaking, I think they are NECESSARY for use for home defense. I shouldn't be forced to trade my hearing for my life, but that's what I'll be doing by shooting in an enclosed space, without a sound suppressor. 

 

 

This is akin to saying Qurans are not necessary to the practice of Christianity, so possession of Qurans by Christians may be banned because they are unable to show necessity.

 

That's not how our rights work.

 

 

[RECarry]

On 6/26/2023 at 1:31 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

ILAG argues silencers aren't arms and asked for judgment...

CONCLUSION Silencers are not “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s plain text. Nor are they necessary to the effective use of such “Arms” for self-defense. Thus, silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment. For all these reasons, Defendants Kwame Raoul, Brendan F. Kelly, Craig Miller, and Bryan Robbins respectfully move the Court to enter judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

 

Personally speaking, I think they are NECESSARY for use for home defense. I shouldn't be forced to trade my hearing for my life, but that's what I'll be doing by shooting in an enclosed space, without a sound suppressor. 

 

So, musicians are not allowed to protect their lives and their hearing.  Moms are not allowed to protect their hearing and that of their children? So logicial.

In a self-defense situation you'll have time to put on ear protection first?

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 6/26/2023 at 4:19 PM, RECarry said:

 

So, musicians are not allowed to protect their lives and their hearing.  Moms are not allowed to protect their hearing and that of their children? So logicial.

In a self-defense situation you'll have time to put on ear protection first?

Dont forget pregnant mothers who will injure their unborn child due to sound waves blasting through the amniotic fluid.

[Flynn]

 

ILGA drivels

CONCLUSION Silencers are not “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s plain text.

 

I believe the Supreme Court in Caetano, begs to differ...  The Court did not limit their opinion to 'necessary' components or accesories of arms, they said...

 

SCOTUS in Caetano said

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms."

 

 

[RECarry]

Silencers should be celebrated by Marxists. They allow for the use and training of a tool in close quarters and indoors.  Only wealthy landowners can afford large estates where enormous rooms and open spaces mitigate the report of a firearm.

 

Maybe it's a case where leftists know they might snap and execute their opponents if it could be done silently (as they believe silencers work silently).

Edited June 27, 2023 at 12:09 PM by RECarry

[Euler]

As already discussed a bit above:

 

On June 26, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and another motion to stay discovery. The questions asked in the pleadings are:

1. Whether silencers are arms, and
2. Whether silencers are necessary for the effective use of arms.

The motion to stay discovery refers to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. There's no point in doing anything more if silencers are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

On June 28, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint report in which they agreed that deciding whether silencers are arms is of central importance to anything further.

 

Note that the plaintiffs have not yet responded to the motion for judgment on whether silencers are arms, only on whether anything beyond that is pointless until that question is answered. Presumably plaintiffs will point out in the response that the defendants' view of the question is incomplete.

 

Edited July 2, 2023 at 06:41 AM by Euler

[sin]

So if the court date is in june of 2024, and if it will go in our favor - will it take an effect same day or there is another ways for a state to push this can down the road? 

[davel501]

On 7/5/2023 at 11:31 AM, sin said:

So if the court date is in june of 2024, and if it will go in our favor - will it take an effect same day or there is another ways for a state to push this can down the road? 

 

This is in the district court so the order will immediately be appealed (and stayed if it goes in our favor) so yes - it will get pushed down the road.

[Plinkermostly]

'On the road again . . . .'