Bevis v Naperville - AWB

[Molly B.]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:53 PM, Euler said:

It looks (from the docket) like the appellate court is trying to schedule oral arguments on the preliminary injunction sometime in June or so.

 

 

I don't see anything posted after March 22??

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952499/bevis-v-city-of-naperville-illinois/

[Euler]

On 4/17/2023 at 10:03 AM, Molly B. said:

I don't see anything posted after March 22??

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952499/bevis-v-city-of-naperville-illinois/

 

That's the district docket. The appellate docket is at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66859449/robert-bevis-v-city-of-naperville/

 

The case as a whole is still at the district level.

 

The motion for preliminary injunction is at the appellate level.

[steveTA84]

On 4/17/2023 at 5:39 PM, mab22 said:

 

From that article.

They actually cited a "Republican" who received money from a Group, NOT DIRECTLY received money.

Talk about political BULLS**T in Illinois, I bet they despise and loath Republicans as much as JB does.

 

 

It’s ok. The news on this (Rochford and O’Brien) is out there now and won’t be going away. Further, the circumstances are extremely different. Legislation wasn’t involved in that case (with the other justice) in which both the Governor, Welch and Harmon (all defendants) want to be upheld. That’s a poor desperate attempt to try and minimize some of this lol 

[MrTriple]

Unfortunately the court denied the request for an injunction pending appeal.

 

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1648418547897606145?s=20

[Matt B]

This really feels like a case that should have been parked while the Southern District cases advance with a much more favorable record…

[MrTriple]

On 4/18/2023 at 3:51 PM, Matt B said:

This really feels like a case that should have been parked while the Southern District cases advance with a much more favorable record…

Assuming McGlynn issues an injunction in Barnett, I wonder how that would interact with this denial.

 

But yes, the lawyers in Bevis really should've held their case.

[Molly B.]

They can request an en banc hearing, yes?

[MrTriple]

Of course, the next obvious question is why was the injunction denied?

[Euler]

On 4/18/2023 at 5:55 PM, Molly B. said:

They can request an en banc hearing, yes?

 

There hasn't even been a panel hearing. As of April 10, it's clear from the filings that the plaintiffs expected there to be a hearing. FPC even filed their amicus brief at 11am today. This denial (2:30pm) came out of nowhere.

 

On 4/18/2023 at 5:56 PM, MrTriple said:

Of course, the next obvious question is why was the injunction denied?

 

There are no judges' signatures or even names on the denial. So the denial is ordered, but no one is ordering it. There's no analysis. There are no citations, except a list of select docket entries. The denial doesn't even cite a rule of civil procedure.

 

It's weird, like someone is trolling the docket.

[MRE]

Appellate Courts tend to give a lot of deference to the district court when injunctions are appealed, especially in regard to the district court’s fact finding. This was a terrible case in that regard, both in how it was argued and decided at the district level. So it’s not too surprising that they declined to overturn the District court decision in this case.  

 

The Southern District case and argument was much more in depth, and the judge dug much deeper into pertinent questions and arguments than the northern district did in this case. 
 

in other words, if the Southern District isssues an injunction in the other case, I wouldn’t read too much into this case and automatically think that the 7th would overturn the Southern District 

Edited April 18, 2023 at 10:58 PM by MRE

[Molly B.]

On 4/18/2023 at 5:57 PM, MRE said:

Appellate Courts tend to give a lot of deference to the district court when injunctions are appealed, especially in regard to the district court’s fact finding. This was a terrible case in that regard, both in how it was argued and decided at the district level. So it’s not too surprising that they declined to overturn the District court decision in this case.  

 

The Southern District case and argument was much more in depth, and the judge dug much deeper into pertinent questions and arguments than the northern district did in this case. 
 

in other words, if the Southern District isssues an injunction in the other case, I wouldn’t read too much into this case and automatically think that the 7th would overturn the Southern District 

 

 Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.

[Molly B.]

 

[Jeffrey]

Smoke 'em if you got 'em TV but I think yesterday was 4/20

[Upholder]

Appeal filed to SCOTUS:

 

https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Motion-in-S-Ct.pdf

[Upholder]

 

Quote

You can never expect SCOTUS to get involved at such an early stage in litigation. If you do expect that, you will usually be disappointed. ....but it would be huge if they did. They always get involved early and quickly to help the government side, why not us for once.

 

[Upholder]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_865f95fc-e472-11ed-8d13-e72f72b4c54d.html

[Upholder]

SCOTUS docket:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22A948.html

[Upholder]

Justice Barrett has requested the state respond by Noon Eastern on May 8th:

 

Quote

May 01 2023

Response to application (22A948) requested by Justice Barrett, due May 8, 2023, by noon (EDT).

 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

SCOTUS requesting briefings. 

[steveTA84]

On 5/1/2023 at 4:35 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

SCOTUS requesting briefings. 

Uh oh lol. State better not interest balance in their brief 😂😂😂😂😂

[chislinger]

On 5/1/2023 at 4:46 PM, steveTA84 said:

Uh oh lol. State better not interest balance in their brief 😂😂😂😂😂

But that's all they have!

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Is it unusual that SCOTUS would take briefings at this point?   Don't they usually just deny the request without comment? 

 

 

[Upholder]

 

We probably shouldn't let them down..........

[davel501]

Gotta love how they respect the speech of others. If these people ever got their way the bill of rights would be gone. 

 

[cybermgk]

 

[Flynn]

On 5/2/2023 at 1:43 PM, davel501 said:

Gotta love how they respect the speech of others. If these people ever got their way the bill of rights would be gone. 

 

They utterly hate that Twitter is no longer a like minded echo chamber where everyone with a differing view is silenced, censored and banned entirely...

[G214me]

I can hardly wait to see what gem of an argument Naperville comes up with. 

[2smartby1/2]

On 5/2/2023 at 3:55 PM, G214me said:

I can hardly wait to see what gem of an argument Naperville comes up with. 

#metoo

 

It is a simple question with an even simper answer.   But they will hem and haw and talk about public safety and other non-relevant items. 

[Flynn]

On 5/2/2023 at 3:55 PM, G214me said:

I can hardly wait to see what gem of an argument Naperville comes up with. 

 

On 5/2/2023 at 3:57 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

#metoo

 

It is a simple question with an even simper answer.   But they will hem and haw and talk about public safety and other non-relevant items. 

 

I honestly hope they do, then I would love the the SCOTUS to respond with something along the lines of "That's all fine and dandy, but all moot arguments in this regards to infringments upon the enumerated rigth in the 2nd"

[lilguy]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/05/02/scotus-justice-barrett-gives-illinois-city-until-monday-to-respond-to-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban/

 

Does this mean the supremes are taking the case away from the appeals court?

Edited May 3, 2023 at 03:54 PM by lilguy