Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)

[Flynn]

On 7/2/2023 at 1:39 AM, Euler said:

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.

 

We know the angle they are going to play with question 2 (it's one of their straw grasps) but it should be a dead end (at least in courts following Heller/Bruen) if the answer to 1 is "yes" and it should be as nothing in the 2nd, nor Heller/Bruen limits protections to arms that are necessary or required for an arm to function in some particular way...  It's utterly silly to even pretend the 2nd only protects what is absolutely necessary for an arm to function and components that provide safety, accuracy, reliability and such are not protected.

[BobPistol]

So, where is the suppressor ban in the ILCS?   If it is part of a firearm statute, NOW they claim it is not a firearm or has nothing to do with firearms?

[davel501]

On 7/6/2023 at 10:26 PM, BobPistol said:

So, where is the suppressor ban in the ILCS?   If it is part of a firearm statute, NOW they claim it is not a firearm or has nothing to do with firearms?

 

720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) 

 

§ 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

... 

(6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm; or

...

[Flynn]

On 7/6/2023 at 10:26 PM, BobPistol said:

So, where is the suppressor ban in the ILCS?   If it is part of a firearm statute, NOW they claim it is not a firearm or has nothing to do with firearms?

 

Over and above that, what I find funny is that if it's an arm, it is as Caetano was clear as day that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms." the court's choice to use the word "constitute" was deliberate and made all parts of an arm inclusive in the 2nds protections and thus the entire burden of proof for the state to prove it's not protected under the Heller/Bruen test falls upon them, not a judge ruling that this arm may or may not be necessary and not protected without the state proving this to be the case, the mere fact that silencers are a part that may 'constitute' a bearable arm puts it under the 2nds protections.

 

Of course, I don't have much hope of Illinois courts and the 7th actually following court precedent they don't like or refuse to acknowledge.  Every day it's becoming more and more clear the stiff white glove delivered to the lower courts in Bruen simply wasn't enough to knock sense into many of these lower courts.  I'm really looking forward to the 'What's the matter with you dolts?' wording that comes in the next 2nd case from the SCOTUS and I hope that 7th is the one it's delivered to.

[BobPistol]

On 7/6/2023 at 8:42 PM, davel501 said:

 

720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) 

 

§ 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

... 

(6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm; or

...

 

The context of this law CLEARLY is about firearms - now the State says "naaaaaaaaaah, nothing to do with firearms"

They are lying.   Then again, the AG is a sociopath so no surprise. 

[davel501]

On 7/7/2023 at 5:07 PM, BobPistol said:

 

The context of this law CLEARLY is about firearms - now the State says "naaaaaaaaaah, nothing to do with firearms"

They are lying.   Then again, the AG is a sociopath so no surprise. 

 

"Arms" there are other bearable arms in that statute but bearable arms are what is protected. 

[Flynn]

On 7/7/2023 at 6:20 PM, davel501 said:

 

"Arms" there are other bearable arms in that statute but bearable arms are what is protected. 

 

And it will be interesting to see where the SCOTUS goes with that..   By definition melee weapons are bearable, thus under the plain text all melee weapons are protected by default, and thus basically anything one can bear and use as a weapon of offense and defense in any fashion is technically covered and for it to be outlawed the state has the burden of proof to prove it's not protected by history and tradition...  This could get quite interesting if the state(s) keep pushing the issue up, as even removed from a firearm, a 'suppressor' could be argued to be a protected melee arm in itself being used as a blunt object...

[Euler]

On July 2, 2023 at 01:39 AM, Euler said:→

...
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.
...
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. ...

On July 10, the plaintiffs responded. (As I write this, the response itself is not available on CourtListener.)

On July 11, the judge granted the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion of defendants' pleadings, noting that such a resolution is dispositive of the remainder of the case without further historical analysis required under Bruen. The remainder of the case (e.g., historical analysis) is not adjourned. Parties can pick up where they left off once the motion is resolved.

[2smartby1/2]

 

[Euler]

On July 26, Morse and Anderson (separately) filed their responses to the state's pleading that suppressors are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Morse said:

The Defendant's ("the State") terse interpretation of the Second Amendment runs contrary to existing precedent and how constitutional rights are typically interpreted. First, suppressors are "firearms" because Congress said they are. Second, suppressors are protected arms because they facilitate armed self-defense. However, even if this Court finds otherwise, suppressors are nonetheless protected by the Second Amendment because they are firearm accessories. And firearm accessories that assist with self-defense and other protected conduct are protected by the Second Amendment. As such, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is not well taken and should be denied.
...

A. Plaintiffs Morse and Buck are Normal, Law-Abiding Individuals and Part of the People to Which the Second Amendment Protects

...

B. Suppressors Are Typically Possessed For Lawful Purposes

...

C. The Second Amendment Protects Firearm Accessories

...

D. The Second Amendment Right Includes Hunting and Training

...

E. Suppressors Assist in Hunting, Target Shooting and Self-Defense

...

F. Hearing Protection is Necessary to Use Firearms Safely

...

G. Accessories Do not Need to Be Mandatory to the Use of an Arm to be Protected by the Second Amendment

...

Anderson said:

...
Here, the relevant conduct in question is possessing a firearm equipped with a suppressor. That conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment because a firearm equipped with a suppressor is an "arm." As the Supreme Court has established, an "arm" includes "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." ... What is more, the Second Amendment as a matter of plain text covers "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." ... Under this binding interpretation of the Second Amendment, a firearm equipped with a suppressor indisputably is an arm, and therefore possessing such a firearm indisputably is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.
...
Illinois does not attempt to meet its historical burden in the present motion. Instead, the State argues that since suppressors are not themselves firearms, the Suppressor Ban does not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment. But this argument is nonsensical. The State does not purport to have any interest in banning suppressors apart from their operation with firearms. In other words, the Suppressor Ban is aimed at restricting the ability of citizens to use arms with the dampened sound they can have when equipped with a suppressor. A firearm equipped with a suppressor is no less of a protected "arm" than a firearm without one.
...
The State claims that suppressors, unlike magazines or sights, are not useful for self-defense and so they are not protected parts of firearms. But that is wrong both in theory and application. The State is wrong in theory because there is no rule that a part of a firearm is only protected by the Second Amendment if it can be shown to be sufficiently important for self-defense. Rather, the Supreme Court has rejected that proposition and warned courts that they should not be in the business of making that sort of judgment. The State's argument is wrong in practice because suppressors are useful for self-defense, or for any other type of lawful use of a firearm. Without them, firearms present significant dangers to the hearing of their users and of any bystanders.
...

I. The Suppressor Ban Prohibits Conduct Covered by the Plain Text of the Second Amendment.

...

II. Suppressors Perform Critical Functions in the Use of Firearms for Self-Defense and Other Lawful Purposes.

...

III. At the Very Least, Suppressors Must Be Protected by Implication of the Plain Text of the Second Amendment.

...

IMO the Morse brief appears to lay out the case better than the Anderson brief, despite the Anderson brief being several pages longer.

Edited July 30, 2023 at 02:16 AM by Euler

[JTHunter]

Morse was more "concise" in their wording.  Anderson was verbose and went with a lot of "legalese".

[Euler]

On October 31, Morse asked to file Benitez's Duncan (mag ban) and Miller (awb) rulings (from California) as supplemental authorities.

Benitez grows legs, even if the 9th Circuit tries to gaslight him.

[Euler]

On January 29, parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending a ruling on the pleadings

Basically both parties want to know if either side wins based on the briefs already submitted. If the judge denies the ruling, nobody loses yet. The case just continues.

[Euler]

On February 2, the judge granted the motion for a stay pending a ruling on the pleadings.

[TomKoz]

On 1/30/2024 at 5:15 AM, Euler said:

On January 29, parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending a ruling on the pleadings

Basically both parties want to know if either side wins based on the briefs already submitted. If the judge denies the ruling, nobody loses yet. The case just continues.

Why would Raul do such a thing??   Unless he knew he could count on the judge ruling in the States favor maybe somehow ?  Hmmm 🤔.  You would think the State would just want to keep dragging things along as usual.

[Euler]

On July 17, the judge scheduled a status hearing for August 21.

[Euler]

On August 21, the status hearing took place. The case remains stayed.

[Euler]

American Suppressor Association is the sponsor of Anderson, which as been consolidated into Morse.

/r/ILguns said:→

...
We had our first update in about a year on Anderson v. Raoul, the ASA-F and Silencer Shop-backed lawsuit challenging Illinois' suppressor ban. The short update is: we're still awaiting a ruling on the State's motion to dismiss. But at least now we have an understanding of what the judge is looking towards before he makes a ruling on Illinois' motion to dismiss.

On August 21, 2024, the judge held a status update hearing. The purpose of this hearing was for the parties to update Judge Dugan on where the lawsuit stands and determine a schedule for moving forward. At the hearing, Judge Dugan determined that the case should continue to be stayed in light of the Barnett v. Raoul case that will go to a bench trial beginning September 16th. That case challenges Illinois' ban on "assault weapons." For reference, that case is being heard by Judge McGlynn, who initially issued a preliminary injunction barring Illinois from enforcing its "assault weapon ban." The Seventh Circuit struck down that preliminary injunction, which sent the case back to Judge McGlynn for trial.

Now, we'll wait and see what Judge McGlynn decides, and will then continue awaiting a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. We will continue to update our website as new information becomes available.

https://suppressor.org/litigation/

Best,

Owen Miller| Vice President American Suppressor Association
...

So it looks like this case is now one among a few that are waiting for a ruling in Barnett to move forward. It's probably as much to avoid stealing Barnett's thunder as it is strategic to let Barnett do the heavy lifting.

Edited August 29, 2024 at 09:17 PM by Euler

[Euler]

On October 21, the judge scheduled a status hearing for January 14. Now that Barnett has a ruling, Morse might move forward.

[aamport19]

what's delaying a ruling on this case at this point?

[ealcala31]

Judge McGlynn is on this case. It's going to end up like our semi-auto ban case, 'W', Stay, 'L', ? on whether SCOTUS hears a suppressor case.

[Black Flag]

On 11/14/2024 at 4:24 PM, aamport19 said:

what's delaying a ruling on this case at this point?

A trial, perhaps?
Has it gone to trial yet?

[John Q Public]

Basically it's if the SC doesn't take a specific law on, it will remain in place in Illinois. Illinois will simply ignore all previous rulings for one reason or another. Even if the SC tosses out a law, I have no doubt Illinois will simply write another and so on. Until the judges/law makers  are removed, or sanctioned it will never end. 

[Euler]

On November 12, the judge reiterated that this case is still stayed.

[Euler]

On November 25, the plaintiffs asked to file Barnett as an authority.

[ragsbo]

On 11/15/2024 at 12:05 PM, John Q Public said:

Basically it's if the SC doesn't take a specific law on, it will remain in place in Illinois. Illinois will simply ignore all previous rulings for one reason or another. Even if the SC tosses out a law, I have no doubt Illinois will simply write another and so on. Until the judges/law makers  are removed, or sanctioned it will never end. 

Exactly, until it hurts them, they will keep doing it

[Euler]

On January 14, there was a status hearing. The case is still stayed. The next status hearing is scheduled for April 15.

[Euler]

On February 11, the judge scheduled a hearing for a motion for a judgment on the pleadings for April 9. The status hearing previously scheduled for April 15 is rescheduled to occur with the motion hearing.

In other words, there could be a judgment in a couple of months.

[2smartby1/2]

Fingers crossed!

[Euler]

On February 13, Raoul asked to file the 5th Circuit's recent US v Peterson decision as a supplemental authority.

On February 14, the judge granted the motion.

Background:

The ATF raided Peterson's home and found a homemade suppressor. He was charged with an NFA violation. At trial, Peterson moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that suppressors are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The district court ruled that suppressors are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and denied the motion. Peterson appealed the denial of the motion.

On February 6, the 5th Circuit upheld the district court's ruling.

Edited February 28, 2025 at 04:44 AM by Euler