Bevis v Naperville - AWB

[modeler1945]

On 5/3/2023 at 10:49 AM, lilguy said:

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?

No, see cybermgk post above with the video from Four Boxes Diner.

[mauserme]

I know expectations are low on this, but is it possible Justice Barrett will enjoin Naperville in order to bring it into conformance with the rest of the state?

 

 

[Tvandermyde]

On 5/3/2023 at 8:59 AM, mauserme said:

I know expectations are low on this, but is it possible Justice Barrett will enjoin Naperville in order to bring it into conformance with the rest of the state?

 

 

possible, but this should put the state on notice that the justices have this issue in their sights. I think the best thing would be for nothing to happen. And then if the 7th were to issue a stay on the Barnett case WITHOUT opinion, it would tee us up for what happened with New york when they were winning on injunctions only to have the anti-gun 2nd COA issue stays. Thomas and Alito cautioned the 2nd about doing that. If that happened to us, then we would be in the posture to make the same argument that the 7th is not heading the advice from the New york appeal post Bruen and it begs the Court to step in as in post Heller, the lower courts are ignoring what SCOTUS said and trying to work around it in these districts. 

 

I don't think that is going to happen as this whole appeal by the state looks shaky and on Rule 8 the lawyers not involved with the case are shaking their heads at the state. And from what I read the COA in on recess till may 17th. 

 

gonna be in interesting few days here as we wait. 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 5/3/2023 at 10:59 AM, mauserme said:

I know expectations are low on this, but is it possible Justice Barrett will enjoin Naperville in order to bring it into conformance with the rest of the state?

 

 

i was pondering this this am and it would be nice if she ruled "too early for us to get involved but oh by the way, all lower courts need to base their decisions based on the bruen standard."

[THE KING]

On 5/3/2023 at 11:51 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

i was pondering this this am and it would be nice if she ruled "too early for us to get involved but oh by the way, all lower courts need to base their decisions based on the bruen standard."

I think you're right about this.  Just like Justice Alito did in the 2nd circuit with New York before the NYSRPA  case was brought forth. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/3/2023 at 10:49 AM, lilguy said:

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?

 

No. It means they are going to entertain the idea of granting an injunction.  From what I have read, the SCOTUS usually just flat out denies these requests, often without comment.  It is kind of unusual that a Justice wants briefs.  The 4 boxes guy on Youtube believes the SCOTUS is signaling to the 7th circuit that they expect Bruen to be followed. 

 

 

[Euler]

On 5/3/2023 at 11:49 AM, lilguy said:

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?

 

The case was never in the appeals court. Bevis appealed only the denial of only a preliminary injunction, which got denied. Then Bevis appealed that denial to the Supreme Court. Requesting a response is just procedure. Setting a one-week deadline isn't procedure. Either way, the case itself is still at the district level, where it still has not been heard, with a judge who says Bevis isn't going to win.

 

IMO the only reason the Supreme Court involvement is significant is that Barrett may issue instructions on how the district court's justification of the denial of an injunction is flawed. Maybe.

 

The usual thing would be for the Supreme Court to wait for the final disposition of the case itself.

[steveTA84]

My god

 

 

[MrTriple]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:40 AM, steveTA84 said:

My god

 

 

Not surprising. They've been trying to limit Heller to just handguns for over a decade now.

[Flynn]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:40 AM, steveTA84 said:

My god

 

 

 

The blind leading the blind...

 

“the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008)

 

Reaffirmed in Caetano that the 2nd is not limited to handguns.

 

An honest judge will dismiss the states claims instantly.

[MRE]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:40 AM, steveTA84 said:

My god

 

 

“High powered rounds designed for maximum wound effect…exceptionally lightweight and highly maneuverable…low recoil…extremely accurate from long distance, even hundreds of yards”

 

Hard to tell if this is a legal argument being made, or an ad for quite possibly the best hunting rifle ever made 

[solareclipse2]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:42 PM, MRE said:

“High powered rounds designed for maximum wound effect…exceptionally lightweight and highly maneuverable…low recoil…extremely accurate from long distance, even hundreds of yards”

 

Hard to tell if this is a legal argument being made, or an ad for quite possibly the best hunting rifle ever made 

 

Sold. I'll take two.

[steveTA84]

 

[DaveIL]

Docket

 

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

 

State Response to Supreme court

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266284/20230508085805151_Bevis - Response to Motion IPA USSC Final for Filing.pdf

 

City of Naperville Response to to Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266291/20230508105522112_Naperville USSC Opposition.pdf

[Upholder]

 

[Upholder]

 

Quote

LOL! A gun that can fire semiauto-only is somehow more effective than a select fire version. Got it. Very cool Illinois, thank you. This whole brief is like a highlight reel of arguments that get Bruen completely wrong. I hope SCOTUS intervenes, even though I still am pessimistic that they will quite yet.

 

[2smartby1/2]

The whole thing is pretty loopy.  Hopefully ACB steps in and sets the tone for the entire nation. 

[yurimodin]

On 5/3/2023 at 10:49 AM, lilguy said:

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?

if they do its gonna take forever......The good news is the communists will just ignore that ruling too.

[Upholder]

Amicus Brief from FFL-IL, Guns Save Life, GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266294/20230508113513843_FFL-IL Amicus Brief ISO NAGR Emergency Pet.pdf

[davel501]

Look at the state, reversing the burden of proof outlined in NYSRPA v Bruen:

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

Regarding the city, how is this not a violation of the IL Open Meetings Act? They basically got everything situated even before the public knew it was being done in the first place 

 

 

And as you see, the plan came to fruition 

[yurimodin]

On 5/8/2023 at 1:10 PM, Upholder said:

Amicus Brief from FFL-IL, Guns Save Life, GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266294/20230508113513843_FFL-IL Amicus Brief ISO NAGR Emergency Pet.pdf

we can stay the stay of the injunction 

[tricolor]

Unless I totally missed it, easterbrook's Friedman case isn't even cited by the state. Interesting. 

[Upholder]

On 5/8/2023 at 2:08 PM, tricolor said:

Unless I totally missed it, easterbrook's Friedman case isn't even cited by the state. Interesting. 

 

Of course not.  I'm not a lawyer and it's obvious even to me that it's dead-letter law.

[Upholder]

Amicus Brief by NSSF:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266243/20230505150853642_2023-5-5 - No. 22A948 - FINAL NSSF amicus brief.pdf

[yurimodin]

On 5/8/2023 at 3:13 PM, Upholder said:

Amicus Brief by NSSF:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A948/266243/20230505150853642_2023-5-5 - No. 22A948 - FINAL NSSF amicus brief.pdf

does this mean SCOTUS is taking the case?

[Euler]

On 5/8/2023 at 4:37 PM, yurimodin said:

does this mean SCOTUS is taking the case?

 

No. Bevis appealed the denials of an injunction at the district and appellate levels. That's all. The case is still in district court.

[jcable2]

So they start out with trying to play on Emotions with the shooting on July, 4th, then go into interest balancing, and than twist Bruen. Instead of them having to prove that the law is historical backed, they are saying we have to prove it is not. I hope the Supreme Court slap them hard with reality. 

[Craigcr2]

On 5/8/2023 at 1:19 PM, davel501 said:

Look at the state, reversing the burden of proof outlined in NYSRPA v Bruen:

 

 

 

They aren’t actually arguing on the Bruin test here. They’re arguing on the factors the Supreme Court typically applies in considering an emergency application. Basically the state is saying “even if we’re wrong, we aren’t wrong enough for you to be sure enough to get involved right now”.

[Plinkermostly]

IMHO they are well past wrong enough.