Jump to content

Bevis v Naperville - AWB


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

The case was filed in the Federal District Court of Northern Illinois on September 7. (Docket)

 

Robert Bevis owns Law Weapons & Supply.

 

On November 18, plaintiffs filed motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

On November 21, the court held a hearing on the motions. It expects to issue a ruling on them on November 28.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2022 at 3:34 AM, Euler said:

...

On November 18, plaintiffs filed motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

On November 21, the court held a hearing on the motions. It expects to issue a ruling on them on November 28.

 

Consideration for the motion for a temporary restraining order has been postponed at the plaintiff's request.

Defense's response brief is due December 5. Plaintiff's reply brief is due December 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2022 at 4:55 PM, Euler said:

 

Consideration for the motion for a temporary restraining order has been postponed at the plaintiff's request.

Defense's response brief is due December 5. Plaintiff's reply brief is due December 9.

 

Any speculation Euler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Nov. 23, the court ordered additional briefing on two questions:   (1) whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue in Naperville's ordinance banning the sale of so-called "assault weapons," and (2) if so, whether the "regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol a**'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). Briefs are due on December 5, 2022, and should not exceed 20 pages. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/23/2022)

 

The defendant was also given additional time to answer the complaint and after a status report from the parties, the new briefing schedule was set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 1:43 PM, gunuser17 said:

On Nov. 23, the court ordered additional briefing on two questions:   (1) whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue in Naperville's ordinance banning the sale of so-called "assault weapons," and (2) if so, whether the "regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol a**'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). Briefs are due on December 5, 2022, and should not exceed 20 pages. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/23/2022)

 

The defendant was also given additional time to answer the complaint and after a status report from the parties, the new briefing schedule was set.

 

"so-called".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 1:43 PM, gunuser17 said:

On Nov. 23, the court ordered additional briefing on two questions:   (1) whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue in Naperville's ordinance banning the sale of so-called "assault weapons," and (2) if so, whether the "regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol a**'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 (2022). Briefs are due on December 5, 2022, and should not exceed 20 pages. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/23/2022)

 

The defendant was also given additional time to answer the complaint and after a status report from the parties, the new briefing schedule was set.

I might be misunderstanding what they're saying here, but isn't this a rehashing of then prohibited "two step" approach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 4:00 PM, MrTriple said:

I might be misunderstanding what they're saying here, but isn't this a rehashing of then prohibited "two step" approach?

 

No, the 2nd step the court tossed was the 'means-end' test.

 

What Bruen says is the courts were wrongfully applying two seperate test first the 'history' test than a 'means-end' test, they can only apply the 'history' test, but that history test is actually two steps itself, the court must also confirm that the conduct is covered under the 2nd aka is it applicable to the subject and activity of keeping and bearing arms and if so does history show the government historically restricted that activity or exempt it from being protected under the 2nd.

 

It really makes sense, it simply limits the courts from applying the 'history' only and no 'means-end' test outside the scope of the 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 8:40 PM, Euler said:

The stay was stipulated jointly to the court by both the plaintiff and defense. The judge still has to agree, but that should happen easily.

Any thoughts as to why? If it were the defendant alone that'd be one thing, but both parties is another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 10:29 PM, MrTriple said:

Any thoughts as to why? If it were the defendant alone that'd be one thing, but both parties is another.

 

Naperville would probably prefer not to spend money/resources creating an enforcement infrastructure it later may have to dismantle. Remember that Naperville is getting it's legal services for free-free, not tax-funded-free, so legal costs won't matter. Everything else would eventually cost real (tax) money.

 

This joint agreement only lasts until there is a ruling on a preliminary injunction. Bevis isn't demanding a lot. Naperville isn't giving a lot. Neither side would benefit from appearing unreasonable. As such, all the stay does is extend the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2022 at 11:02 PM, Euler said:

 

Naperville would probably prefer not to spend money/resources creating an enforcement infrastructure it later may have to dismantle. Remember that Naperville is getting it's legal services for free-free, not tax-funded-free, so legal costs won't matter. Everything else would eventually cost real (tax) money.

 

This joint agreement only lasts until there is a ruling on a preliminary injunction. Bevis isn't demanding a lot. Naperville isn't giving a lot. Neither side would benefit from appearing unreasonable. As such, all the stay does is extend the status quo.

I pay a lot in property taxes to Naperthrill every year.  If there was a way to opt out my taxes to their "cause" I'd be first in line.  Sooner or later the free-free scum sucker, aka lawyer, is gonna start asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On December 13, the judge ordered:

 

Parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing on the following questions:

 

(1) whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue in Naperville's ordinance banning the sale of so-called "assault weapons," and

(2) if so, whether the "regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

 

Defendant's brief is due on December 19, 2022; Plaintiffs' brief is due on December 23, 2022. Briefs should not exceed 20 pages. The Court will consider sanctions and any other appropriate relief if the city fails to comply with this Order. The stay of the Ordinance will remain in effect until the final disposition of plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

 

The emphasis is mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2022 at 9:33 PM, Euler said:

On December 13, the judge ordered:

 

Parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing on the following questions:

 

(1) whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct at issue in Naperville's ordinance banning the sale of so-called "assault weapons," and

(2) if so, whether the "regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

 

Defendant's brief is due on December 19, 2022; Plaintiffs' brief is due on December 23, 2022. Briefs should not exceed 20 pages. The Court will consider sanctions and any other appropriate relief if the city fails to comply with this Order. The stay of the Ordinance will remain in effect until the final disposition of plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction.

 

The emphasis is mine.

 

Sounds like they are going to have a busy weekend 🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naperville has submitted their brief:

 

 

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The Supreme Court in both Heller and Bruen—cases that Plaintiffs argue govern this dispute—conducted a textual analysis and expressly held that the plain language of the Second Amendment only covers ownership and possession of handguns for self-defense.

 

Hoo-boy are they in for a rude awakening.

 

Edited by Upholder
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Thus, even if Plaintiffs could meet their burden that limitations on the commercial sale of assault rifles is governed by the text of the Second Amendment, the Ordinance would still be constitutionally valid because its prohibition is consistent with the Nation’s tradition of regulating “dangerous [or] unusual weapons.” Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2128 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 627). 6

 

 

I can't imagine that the court will look kindly on them substituting an "or" for "and" in the citation from the Bruen case.

 

Edited by Upholder
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They know exactly what they are doing, it’s called “ The process to protect your right is the punishment”.

They make this crap up and then MAKE YOU go to court to defend. 
Look at the Rhode Island case in the Judicial section of IC, Started at page 13 and by page 17 I had read enough of the judges yammering on and on and on about how a court and judge works by hearing the arguments and on and on. 
I really read that as “Im a judge and I get to decide the case and I don’t like you position so I am going to ignore the Supreme Court and make you GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS including the appeals processes unless and you can quit at any time.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 5:09 PM, Upholder said:

 

 

I can't imagine that the court will look kindly on them substituting an "or" for "and" in the citation from the Bruen case.

 

If there was actually an "and" there, the sleazebags should be sanctioned.  That is a direct misrepresentation to the court.  Conjunctions are exceedingly important in statutes and legal decisions, and every lawyer knows that.  Putting it in brackets just makes it worse for them -- at least it SHOULD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2022 at 5:56 PM, mab22 said:

They know exactly what they are doing, it’s called “ The process to protect your right is the punishment”.

They make this crap up and then MAKE YOU go to court to defend. 
Look at the Rhode Island case in the Judicial section of IC, Started at page 13 and by page 17 I had read enough of the judges yammering on and on and on about how a court and judge works by hearing the arguments and on and on. 
I really read that as “Im a judge and I get to decide the case and I don’t like you position so I am going to ignore the Supreme Court and make you GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS including the appeals processes unless and you can quit at any time.”

 

That's because SCOTUS rulings don't have any enforcement teeth like the other two branches have.  SCOTUS has always depended upon respect for the Court to elicit compliance from state and local governments.  Well, the Dems no longer control the Court through their political hacks in black robes, so now they simply flip the bird at any SCOTUS decision that so much as inconveniences them or their crazy agenda.  The Democrats have presented a case for an exception to legislative immunity.  They are freaking totalitarian criminals, but dummies keep voting Democrat and expecting different results.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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