Jump to content

Bevis v Naperville - AWB

Euler

By Euler
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/24/2023 at 3:16 PM, Tvandermyde said:

...

I will point out that the lead case is now Barnett not the SAF/ISRA case, someone might want to inform Mr. Pearson he got it wrong -- again

 

The usual convention is to consolidate into the lowest numbered case. Barnett is 3:23-cv-00209. Harrel is 3:23-cv-00141. The judge calls the shots, though. He probably has reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/26/2023 at 12:45 AM, lilguy said:

What next court result are we hoping for, and might it be state wide?

 

In this case, a CA7 review of the preliminary injunction will happen faster than a permanent injunction in the district court (which is probably going to be denied and would kill a preliminary injunction, anyway). I also kind of wonder if the plaintiffs are rethinking their desire to combine Bevis with Goldman and Herrera.

 

Otherwise, it's a race for a preliminary injunction in Barnett v Raoul.

 

Injunctions should be state-wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

On February 28, plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal. In particular, it's a motion re-asking for a preliminary injunction. The appeal for the preliminary injunction still moves forward. If the district court issues an injunction, the 7th Circuit can affirm it or vacate it.

 

(TIL: If you're going to file an appeal for an injunction, you must ask the lower court to reconsider. Also TIL: You don't need to login to RECAP to upload a document from PACER. Hmm ... That sounds like a security vulnerability waiting to be exploited....)

 

I think the section headings summarize the motion pretty well.

 

Motion said:

...

I. Procedural Background

 

Plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunction with respect to the City of Naperville Ordinance on November 18, 2022 ... and with respect to the State of Illinois Statute on January 24, 2023 .... The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction in an order dated February 17, 2023 .... On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs appealed the Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit .... See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (order denying request for preliminary injunction appealable)

 

II. Standard of Review

 

[Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure] 8(a)(1)(C) states that a party must move first in the district court for an injunction pending appeal. ...

...

III. Justice Thomas: Laws Like the Illinois Statute and the City's Ordinance are Clearly Unconstitutional

...

IV. "The Relative Dangerousness of a Weapon is Irrelevant"

...

V. The Court Failed to Distinguish Between "Ban" and "Regulation"

...

VI. This Court's Means-End Scrutiny was Not Proper

...

VII. The City's Central Premise is False

 

A. Heller Rejected the City's Central Premise

...

VIII. The Heller/Bruen Historical Analysis

 

A. The Founding Era is the Relevant Time Frame

...

B. The Court Should Not Focus on the 20th Century

...

C. The City's Burden is to Identify "an Enduring American Tradition," Not a Handful of Isolated Examples and Outliers

...

D. The City's Focus on Mass Shootings Does Not Distinguish This Case from Heller

...

IX. The City Cannot Identify a Historical Tradition of Absolute Bans of Commonly Held Arms

...

X. Typical Possession, Not Actual Use, is the Test

...

XI. The Other Temporary Injunction Factors Are Met

 

A. The Factors Are Met on the Basis of the Constitutional Violation

...

B. The Factors Are Met Based on Law Weapons, Inc.'s Extreme Financial Duress

...

C. The Injunction Pending Appeal Must Apply to More Than Just The Plaintiffs

...

X. Conclusion

 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs have met all of the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 62(d) criteria for an injunction pending appeal and respectfully request the Court to enter such injunction forthwith.

 

That puts a different spin on the Viramontes hearing next week.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 3/1/2023 at 2:44 AM, Euler said:

On February 28, plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal. In particular, it's a motion re-asking for a preliminary injunction. The appeal for the preliminary injunction still moves forward. If the district court issues an injunction, the 7th Circuit can affirm it or vacate it.

...

 

On March 2, the district judge denied the preliminary injunction again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 3/3/2023 at 8:29 PM, davel501 said:

Any idea why they asked for a second look? Were they trying to get more arguments into their appeal? 

 

On 3/1/2023 at 2:44 AM, Euler said:

...

... If you're going to file an appeal for an injunction, you must ask the lower court to reconsider. ...

...

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Since the full appeal docket isn't available on CourtListener, here it is (so far):

 
General Docket
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 23-1353 Docketed: 02/23/2023
Nature of Suit: 3440 Other Civil Rights
Robert Bevis, et al v. City of Naperville, et al
Appeal From: Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:
1) civil
2) private
3) -
 
Originating Court Information:
District: 0752-1 : 1:22-cv-04775
Court Reporter: Gayle McGuigan, Court Reporter
Trial Judge: Virginia M. Kendall, District Court Judge
Date Filed: 09/07/2022
Date Order/Judgment: Date NOA Filed:
02/17/2023 02/21/2023

 

02/23/2023 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Docketing Statement due for Appellants Robert Bevis, Law Weapons, Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights by 02/28/2023. Transcript information sheet due by 03/09/2023. Appellant's brief due on or before 04/04/2023 for Robert Bevis, Law Weapons, Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights. [1] [7293235] [23-1353] (HTP) [Entered: 02/23/2023 02:29 PM]
02/23/2023 2 No attorney(s) added for Appellee Jason Arres, per District Court docket and information sheet. [2] [7293241] [23-1353] (HTP) [Entered: 02/23/2023 02:35 PM]
02/23/2023 3 Filed Non-Party Motion To Intervene As Of Right by The State of Illinois. [7293379] [23-1353] (Griffis, Carson) [Entered: 02/23/2023 04:41 PM]
02/28/2023 4 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Christopher B. Wilson for Appellee City of Naperville. [4] [7294082] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [23-1353]-[Edited 02/28/2023 by AP- to reflect the addition of counsel] (Wilson, Christopher) [Entered: 02/28/2023 10:18 AM]
02/28/2023 5 Docketing Statement filed by Appellants Robert Bevis, Law Weapons, Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [5] [7294298] [23-1353] (Craddock, Jason) [Entered: 02/28/2023 03:33 PM]
02/28/2023 6 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Jason R. Craddock, Sr. for Appellants Robert Bevis, Law Weapons, Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights. [6] [7294301] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [23-1353] (Craddock, Jason) [Entered: 02/28/2023 03:36 PM]
03/02/2023 7 ORDER re: Motion to intervene as of right, filed on 2/23/2023. The motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED. The State of Illinois may participate in this appeal as an intervening appellee. [3] MRO [7] [7294704] [23-1353] (FP) [Entered: 03/02/2023 10:27 AM]
03/07/2023 8 Motion filed by Appellants Robert Bevis, Law Weapons, Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights for stay. [8] [7295805] [23-1353] (Craddock, Jason) [Entered: 03/07/2023 06:34 PM]
03/07/2023 9 Submitted supplemental Appendix to motion by Jason R. Craddock for Appellants Robert Bevis, Law Weapons, Inc. and National Association for Gun Rights. [9] NOTE: Access to this entry is limited to counsel of record. [7295806] [23-1353]--[Edited 03/08/2023 by LJ to reflect the correct filing type] (Craddock, Jason) [Entered: 03/07/2023 06:36 PM]
03/09/2023 10 ORDER re: 1. Motion for injunction pending appeal. 2. Appendix to motion for injunction pending appeal. The Appellees shall file a response to the motion for an injunction pending appeal on or before March 21, 2023. MRO [10] [7296244] [23-1353] (CG) [Entered: 03/09/2023 11:29 AM]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted

Discussion of the errors in Bevis v Naperville:

 

Quote

So Bevis begins with the fundamentally wrong criterion that being particularly "dangerous," alone, justifies banning a type of firearm.

 

Full article at

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/13/second-amendment-roundup-an-opening-judicial-salvo-in-defense-of-illinois-new-rifle-ban/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SiliconSorcerer Member

SiliconSorcerer

Posted
Posted
On 3/13/2023 at 12:40 PM, Upholder said:

Discussion of the errors in Bevis v Naperville:

 

 

Full article at

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/13/second-amendment-roundup-an-opening-judicial-salvo-in-defense-of-illinois-new-rifle-ban/

Maybe crime was incredibly low because everyone had a firearm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)

LOL, more of the same fallicious copy and paste of utter stupidity...  On a positive note this blatant continued too clever by half mental gymnastics and changing words to mean something else should make it easier for us to prevail with judges that actually follow the law.

 

 

 

 

lololol.jpg

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 3/9/2023 at 9:17 PM, Euler said:

Since the full appeal docket isn't available on CourtListener, here it is (so far):

...

 

RECAP has begun adding support for appellate cases. I'm not sure how the decision is made between which cases are supported for upload to CourtListener and which cases aren't, but the Bevis appeal for a preliminary injunction is one that is supported, complete with document re-download.

 

CA7 Docket

 

On March 7, plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction.

 

On March 9, the court ordered defendants to respond by March 21.

 

On March 21, defendants responded.

 

On March 24, plaintiffs replied to the response.

 

On March 29, Naperville added two lawyers from Brady United to its team, which is otherwise a gang from Perkins Coie.

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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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