Goldman v Highland Park - AWB

[2A4Cook]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:19 PM, Euler said:

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.

They are highlighting the fact that Illinois is such a tyrannical, Bolshevik police state that of 7 judges ruling on the constitutionality of an obviously unconstitutional law that tramples on the rights of citizens, only 1 had the courage and integrity to follow the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings and restore their rights back to Illinoisians.  It is also noteworthy that in having the gall to represent to the court that semiautomatic rifles "invoke terror from their mere public display," Highland Park is identifying the very police that it employs and controls as domestic terrorists at their command.  Does that not, then, by Highland Park's own argument, make the municipal government of Highland Park a domestic terrorist organization?  THEIR representation, afterall!

[RECarry]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:19 PM, Euler said:

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.

 

Dismissiveness does not mean they are right.  

[Hap]

They know full well that the only votes that count are those of the nine Supreme Court justices.

[Talonap]

On 5/7/2023 at 10:33 AM, Hap said:

They know full well that the only votes that count are those of the nine Supreme Court justices.

 

They don't seem to care about that either...

[Tvandermyde]

On 5/7/2023 at 9:14 AM, Talonap said:

 

They don't seem to care about that either...

 

Oh they care, why do you think they are going after Thomas the way they are? Why do you think they are going after Robert's wife?

[Talonap]

On 5/7/2023 at 11:15 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

Oh they care, why do you think they are going after Thomas the way they are? Why do you think they are going after Robert's wife?

 

They seem to be ignoring Bruen (sp?) That's what I meant by not careing.

Edited May 7, 2023 at 04:23 PM by Talonap

[Tvandermyde]

On 5/7/2023 at 9:14 AM, Talonap said:

 

They don't seem to care about that either...

 

They are not ignoring it they are bent about it and know the only way to change it is to replace the judges like Thomas who wrote it

[yurimodin]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:43 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

They are not ignoring it they are bent about it and know the only way to change it is to replace the judges like Thomas who wrote it

I'm so glad the founders were wise enough to make SCOTUS appointments lifetime knowing full well that this sort of thing could happen.

[springfield shooter]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:19 PM, Euler said:

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.

 

Doesn't say much for any of them but McGlynn, does it?

[steveTA84]

 

[Hap]

On 5/8/2023 at 4:54 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

Doesn't say much for any of them but McGlynn, does it?

Keep in mind that the town is run by someone who flunked the bar exam first time through. The IL exam is not regarded as one of the more demanding ones.

[steveTA84]

On 5/8/2023 at 4:57 PM, steveTA84 said:

 

Posted in wrong thread 🤦‍♂️

[DaveIL]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:41 PM, steveTA84 said:

Posted in wrong thread 🤦‍♂️

Pretty sure it’s relevant here too in some form. It’s ok Steve. 👍

Edited May 9, 2023 at 12:59 AM by DaveIL
Spelling

[Euler]

On May 8, defendants asked the court to expedite a denial on the motion for a preliminary injunction, based on the denials and stay in all the other AWB cases.

 

"Let's hurry, before they're reversed."

[JTHunter]

On 5/7/2023 at 10:33 AM, Hap said:

They know full well that the only votes that count are those of the nine Supreme Court justices.

On 5/7/2023 at 11:14 AM, Talonap said:

They don't seem to care about that either...

 

There was a news story yesterday that some lefty congress-critter was filing legislation to "stack the Court".  I don't know/remember who.

[Euler]

On 5/9/2023 at 4:08 PM, Euler said:

On May 8, defendants asked the court to expedite a denial on the motion for a preliminary injunction, based on the denials and stay in all the other AWB cases.

 

"Let's hurry, before they're reversed."

 

On June 13, plaintiffs also asked the court to rule on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction.

[Euler]

On November 9, plaintiffs filed the CA7 decision (staying the preliminary injunction) on Barnett (as Bevis) as a supplemental authority.

[Euler]

On January 9, the judge finally ruled on the preliminary injunction requested originally in October 2022. Citing the CA7 rationale in the Bevis/Barnett ruling on its corresponding injunction, the judge denied the request. The judge also dismissed NAGR as a plaintiff for lack of standing. NAGR might still have some associational standing, but it has no standing to sue on its own. Lastly, the judge scheduled a status meeting for February 13.

[Euler]

In advance of the February 13 status meeting, on February 5 the judge ordered parties to file a status report by February 7.

On February 6, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal. (In other words, they're dropping the case.)

[Euler]

On February 8, the judge terminated the case as stipulated.

[solareclipse2]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:21 AM, Euler said:

In advance of the February 13 status meeting, on February 5 the judge ordered parties to file a status report by February 7.

On February 6, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal. (In other words, they're dropping the case.)

 

On 2/12/2024 at 9:24 PM, Euler said:

On February 8, the judge terminated the case as stipulated.

 

Sounds like the plaintiff ran out of money. 

[Upholder]

Plaintiff is NAGR and they filed to dismiss the case as they are focusing on the Bevis case, which is much further along.

 

They put out a video yesterday explaining their reasoning and status of their cases in Illinois.

[Euler]

Highland Park won a reprieve by ineptitude. They tried to consolidate this case with others on a couple occasions, but no one wanted it. Then they sat on their thumbs until it became irrelevant. It's hard to care about Highland Park when even the no-cost lawyers for Highland Park don't care about Highland Park.

[mab22]

On 2/13/2024 at 10:41 AM, Euler said:

Highland Park won a reprieve by ineptitude. They tried to consolidate this case with others on a couple occasions, but no one wanted it. Then they sat on their thumbs until it became irrelevant. It's hard to care about Highland Park when even the no-cost lawyers for Highland Park don't care about Highland Park.

Is that because the current cases would render it invalid anyway?

[Upholder]

That is NAGR's reasoning, yes.