Euler Posted November 26, 2022 at 08:57 AM Share Posted November 26, 2022 at 08:57 AM The case was filed in the Federal District Court of Northern Illinois on September 7. (Docket) Susan Goldman is a private individual who owns firearms and magazines of the types that are banned. On October 7, plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions. On October 11, the court held a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction (among other things). A hearing on the motion for a permanent injunction is scheduled for March 8, 2023. (The court has not issued a preliminary injunction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 24, 2022 at 06:16 AM Author Share Posted December 24, 2022 at 06:16 AM On December 23, the City of Highland Park filed a motion in Viramontes v Cook County to combine this case into that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 25, 2022 at 01:09 AM Share Posted December 25, 2022 at 01:09 AM I did not have high hopes for this in the beginning, but seeing this is the same attorney who wrote the brief in the Naperville case, my hopes are picking up. My bet is Highland park is looking to drag this out or they think they got a better judge in the Cook County case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted December 28, 2022 at 07:23 PM Share Posted December 28, 2022 at 07:23 PM Euler -- can you post the link tot he docket for the cook county case so I can track it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silhouette Posted December 28, 2022 at 09:39 PM Share Posted December 28, 2022 at 09:39 PM Here is a link to the docket of the Viramontes v. Cook County case mentioned above: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60319877/viramontes-v-the-county-of-cook/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc There is a separate thread on the Viramontes case, but given that the cases may be combined, posting this here doesn't seem wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted December 29, 2022 at 12:36 AM Share Posted December 29, 2022 at 12:36 AM The Crook County case is facing a trial date. This is a disgusting tactic to delay it by adding a new party, new discovery, etc. etc. etc. This case was filed a year after the Crook County case. Nothing has been done on it yet. They're hoping to have discovery in the Crook case reopened. Allowing this would be highly prejudicial to the Viramontes plaintiffs, not only because of the delay, but because of additional attorneys, new parties to work with, etc. Not to mention the cheap attempts the HP'ers will make to garner sympathy over the recent tragedy there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 17, 2023 at 09:57 PM Share Posted January 17, 2023 at 09:57 PM Motion filed today to amend and supplement the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.418942/gov.uscourts.ilnd.418942.42.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:07 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:07 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:09 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:09 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:30 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:30 PM All of their response is an attempt to return to interest balancing and "well, the SCOTUS hasn't yet overturned anything modern that hasn't been challenged after Bruen was handed down". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:32 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 07:32 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcable2 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:18 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:18 PM On 1/20/2023 at 1:32 PM, Upholder said: I think my 8 year old daughter know and understands more about guns then the lawyer writing this garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:21 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:21 PM On 1/20/2023 at 1:09 PM, Upholder said: SO! If semiautomatic is deadlier then full automatic, and semiautomatic is preferred by the military then civilians should be able to own fully automatic as there would be the possibility for less carnage. Okay, I’ll give up my semiautomatic’s for full auto’s, but I’m not gonna be happy about it!😤 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:24 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:24 PM (edited) Romano does not know what he is talking about. The military when to burst mode because soldiers were wasting and running out of ammo in firefights. The M-16 fired at a rate of 700 rounds per minute. That empties a 20 round mag in less than 2 seconds. Spray and pray is a poor tactic. Three round bursts are better fire control discipline. Edited January 20, 2023 at 08:26 PM by Quiet Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:33 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:33 PM On 1/20/2023 at 2:24 PM, Quiet Observer said: Romano does not know what he is talking about. The military when to burst mode because soldiers were wasting and running out of ammo in firefights. The M-16 fired at a rate of 700 rounds per minute. That empties a 20 round mag in less than 2 seconds. Spray and pray is a poor tactic. Three round bursts are better fire control discipline. I've never seen an M16 with a swappable barrel either. A good barrel is good for 20K rounds, way less if you overheat it. Full auto could kill a barrel in as little as 500 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:37 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:37 PM Separate thought: I give the guy credit for fighting a losing battle so hard. If he's worth his salt he understands the situation enough to argue either side of it so he knows the score and he's still throwing everything at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcr2 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:48 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:48 PM My favorite argument was 'the plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish that assault weapons are common', but also 'both parties have stipulated that there are 24 million' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:48 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:48 PM Romano is quoting Ryan Busse. Rob Romano is with FPC. He is bringing attention to absurd arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcr2 Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:49 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 08:49 PM On 1/20/2023 at 2:33 PM, davel501 said: I've never seen an M16 with a swappable barrel either. A good barrel is good for 20K rounds, way less if you overheat it. Full auto could kill a barrel in as little as 500 rounds. I believe that Colt did produce one for the Canadian military. It fired from an open bolt and I think I recall it having a quick change barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted January 20, 2023 at 10:03 PM Share Posted January 20, 2023 at 10:03 PM On 1/20/2023 at 2:49 PM, Craigcr2 said: I believe that Colt did produce one for the Canadian military. It fired from an open bolt and I think I recall it having a quick change barrel. Well I'll be dipped. I wouldn't have believed it but here I am looking right at it. Quote WAK "Interim SAW" and the BRL XM106[edit] BRL XM106 At the request of the United States Marine Corps, WAK Inc. started work on an "Interim SAW" in 1977. This was to provide a more solid automatic rifle to replace the practice of the automatic rifleman switching his weapon to full-auto, and to provide this capability until the US Army's SAW trials had been completed. The WAK SAW was essentially an M16A1 converted to fire from an open bolt, accompanied by a special buffer, and featuring a specially-made compensator. In 1978 the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) decided to build on the WAK concept to create a contender for the SAW trials, designated XM106. The BRL gun differed primarily in having permanently fixed handguards and a special quick-change barrel system. The handguards also had an M2 bipod originally for the M14 rifle and a vertical foregrip fashioned from an M16A1 pistol grip. Early XM106s also had the front sight moved forward along the barrel to create a longer sight radius for more accurate long range fire, but this was dropped from later versions. In the end the Army used the XM106 as a control variable during the competition and instead selected the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. Colt Automatic Rifle - Wikipedia It looks like the changeable barrel variant never saw service after losing out to the SAW. The Canadian one went with a very heavy 1" thick barrel to deal with the heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 21, 2023 at 12:48 AM Author Share Posted January 21, 2023 at 12:48 AM On 1/20/2023 at 3:21 PM, mab22 said: SO! If semiautomatic is deadlier then full automatic, and semiautomatic is preferred by the military then civilians should be able to own fully automatic as there would be the possibility for less carnage. Okay, I’ll give up my semiautomatic’s for full auto’s, but I’m not gonna be happy about it! What if the anti-gunners required you to convert all your semi-autos to switch-selectable full-auto? Or would that be a "loophole?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted January 21, 2023 at 01:11 AM Share Posted January 21, 2023 at 01:11 AM On 1/20/2023 at 1:30 PM, Upholder said: All of their response is an attempt to return to interest balancing and "well, the SCOTUS hasn't yet overturned anything modern that hasn't been challenged after Bruen was handed down". Didn't they say the same about concealed carry post-Heller? "Well SCOTUS hasn't said anything yet so it's not protected"? If so, doesn't strike me as a smart strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted January 21, 2023 at 01:16 AM Share Posted January 21, 2023 at 01:16 AM On 1/20/2023 at 2:37 PM, davel501 said: Separate thought: I give the guy credit for fighting a losing battle so hard. If he's worth his salt he understands the situation enough to argue either side of it so he knows the score and he's still throwing everything at it. I've wondered the same about these lawyers: Do they genuinely believe this stuff, or is this them doing the best they can with what little they've got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 1, 2023 at 03:06 AM Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 at 03:06 AM United States Conference of Mayors, Everytown for Gun Safety, and March for Our Lives are making noise (starting January 24 and continuing) to file amici briefs. The US Conference of Mayors is not a Bloomberg organization. Nevertheless its official position favors handgun regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sticky22 Posted February 7, 2023 at 04:00 PM Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 04:00 PM On 1/31/2023 at 9:06 PM, Euler said: United States Conference of Mayors, Everytown for Gun Safety, and March for Our Lives are making noise (starting January 24 and continuing) to file amici briefs. The US Conference of Mayors is not a Bloomberg organization. Nevertheless its official position favors handgun regulation. Here is a link to their amicus brief filed unironically by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection on behalf of the Conference of Mayors USCM-Amicus-Brief-Filed-Version-Jan-26-2023.pdf (usmayors.org) interesting take on Bruen Also I don't think I have ever seen an argument that cites all the damage a law failed to prevent as a basis of upholding that same law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 7, 2023 at 04:57 PM Share Posted February 7, 2023 at 04:57 PM Legal ethics, at least as taught in the early '80s, require attorneys to make the best argument they can on behalf of their clients, but prohibits them from making arguments which are total BS. Of course, what constitutes total BS is somewhat of a moving target, and when an attorney is trying to probe the boundaries of a recent Supreme Court decision, some arguments which we would consider total BS may have to get explicitly smacked down by the Court if they survive scrutiny at the lower levels. Patience, and plenty of popcorn, are in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 17, 2023 at 03:37 AM Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 at 03:37 AM (edited) On February 16, Herrera filed a motion to consolidate Herrera v Raoul and Bevis v Naperville into Goldman v Highland Park and to reassign to the court in Bevis. Bevis and Goldman concur. Edited February 17, 2023 at 03:49 AM by Euler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 21, 2023 at 09:49 PM Share Posted February 21, 2023 at 09:49 PM Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.418942/gov.uscourts.ilnd.418942.81.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted March 14, 2023 at 04:11 PM Share Posted March 14, 2023 at 04:11 PM Defendant City of Highland Park's Surreply in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.418942/gov.uscourts.ilnd.418942.87.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted May 6, 2023 at 12:19 AM Author Share Posted May 6, 2023 at 12:19 AM On May 4, Highland Park filed notice of recent developments in Herrera and Barnett pointing out that McGlynn is the only judge in a post-Bruen case, including Bevis, to grant an injunction. Six other judges have deemed the Illinois AWB to be constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now