Jump to content

Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)


Recommended Posts

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

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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;

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. pinned this topic
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • mauserme changed the title to Morse v Raul (IL Suppressor Ban)
  • 1 month later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 by Southsider009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...