AWB Litigation

[wmjlar15]

Thomas DeVore is starting a class action anyone know who he is working with on this?  https://devorelawoffices.com/

[Craigcr2]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:02 PM, wmjlar15 said:

Thomas DeVore is starting a class action anyone know who he is working with on this?  https://devorelawoffices.com/

IIRC he’s going after the procedural method used to pass it. I think he’s on his own. 

[mab22]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:07 PM, Craigcr2 said:

IIRC he’s going after the procedural method used to pass it. I think he’s on his own. 

And he wants $200 a head IF they get enough HEADS.

 

[steveTA84]

ISRA got the notice......

[korgs130]

Does anyone know if you join multiple law suits?

[mab22]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:39 PM, steveTA84 said:

ISRA got the notice......

This kinda makes me nervous that they are charging ahead with the AWB and high cap mag ban after having to remove the FOID section of that alert.

Maybe some other org should do those. 😱

 

[Pies72618]

On 1/12/2023 at 12:44 PM, Longrange454 said:

 

So if NSSF turn coated. Why are they even in concideration.

As a dealer, the NSSF has been great. Not everyone agrees and that’s ok. There are differing interests here. Anyone willing to take on this bill should be supported. Some on supporting consumers. Some are supporting those in the business. Don’t knock any of them. Give to all and hopefully one will get it done. 

[Hap]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:24 AM, steveTA84 said:

Here’s some nice documents, courtesy of the state of California, for the historical laws they are using to attempt to defend their mag/gun bans in court. They are racist and redundant, but IL will Likely use them too. So, easy way to get ahead and prepare. In short, this is all they have, and it’s hilarious to see them use this to attempt to uphold their laws under Bruen

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/17rj3GnZWT5h2gNgUUR2OI5M1CeDvlb4w?usp=share_link
 

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/17Uvq_JV87QtQfqiFJSvQY-NhGTcj9eZO?usp=share_link

 

For those who haven't been following the California cases, Duncan v. Bonta is California's effort to ban what it refers to as "large-capacity magazines"; Rhode v. Bonta is their ammo background check. See the Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion forum for more.

 

I don't know what's worse - the laws, or the fact that modern defendants would attempt to use them in their defense.

 

In any case, the law is the law. So don't forget to register your launcegays.

[Craigcr2]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:11 PM, mab22 said:

This kinda makes me nervous that they are charging ahead with the AWB and high cap mag ban after having to remove the FOID section of that alert.

Maybe some other org should do those. 😱

 

FPC is also soliciting plaintiffs 

[steveTA84]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:52 PM, Craigcr2 said:

FPC is also soliciting plaintiffs 

And FPC had been on fire lately 

[Euler]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:40 PM, mab22 said:

ISRA sent a revised notice and pulled that out. What Is going on over at ISRA?!?!!?

 

ISRA statements aren't necessarily coming from ISRA's lawyer (Sigale). It wouldn't be the first time Pearson sent out a clueless email (not that I entirely revere Sigale as an intellectual giant, either).

[Ranger]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:02 PM, wmjlar15 said:

Thomas DeVore is starting a class action anyone know who he is working with on this? https://devorelawoffices.com/

 

On 1/12/2023 at 7:02 PM, wmjlar15 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 at 03:17 AM by Ranger
Trying to delete my post...

[357]

On 1/12/2023 at 7:07 PM, Craigcr2 said:

IIRC he’s going after the procedural method used to pass it. I think he’s on his own. 

He is wasting his time going after the procedures they used.

[Tip]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:43 PM, 357 said:

He is wasting his time going after the procedures they used.

Hey, if he thinks he’s got a case and can shut down some of the shell bill machinations they use to cram things through then more power to him.

[357]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:54 PM, Tip said:

Hey, if he thinks he’s got a case and can shut down some of the shell bill machinations they use to cram things through then more power to him.

I hope he can do it too but very unlikely and if they broke any rules we would have heard about it and they have their bases covered. He should concentrate on the many other things wrong with the bill.

[gunuser17]

Let's face it, NSSF sole charge is to represent manufacturers.  NSSF only cares about consumers when laws will so impact their manufacturers that they lose enough customers that it impacts the manufacturer bottom line.  So, was it the NSSF that negotiated the carve out for manufacturers in this new law?   

[mab22]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:07 PM, korgs130 said:

Does anyone know if you join multiple law suits?

You may want to ask that here.

 

[Flynn]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:40 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I said I would speak on this in a new post, so here it is.

 

I'm replying here for sake of just because.

 

Anyway Todd had mentioned the problem with the vastness of this law and the limits imposed in complaints, a trivial idea, but could a lawfirm or two or three assemble multiple groups of plantiffs and basically file multiple lawsuits formed lawsuits with simlar but different complaints as a sort of pseudo combined case?  In the end the arguments would be nearly idential so this helps consolidate that overall work load.

 

I won't get into details but I was involved with a group that was being sued nationwide by a single company for a single reason, since all those lawsuits were nearly identical, "we" setup a group of lawyers and using a private highly vetted non-public online forum where they were sharing repsonses to the complaints and filings to create an overall smaller work load vs them all dealing with it independently, same kind of idea the government is using in their copy and paste laws and responses right now.

[lilguy]

What group has the best track record pushing back against these laws and would take on Illinois. No ban has been permanently reversed yet on constitutional grounds. Is it being suggested that we give smaller amounts to multiple groups or is there a single group with the most experience that can carry on the legal fight. Seems we may dividing out forces at the beginning of the war.

Is sending all funds to IC and allowing our group to decide where to direct them an option?

Edited January 16, 2023 at 02:59 PM by lilguy

[Tango7]

While IANAL, I happened to notice this in the law:

 

Quote

(f) Any sale or transfer with a background check initiated
to the Illinois State Police on or before the effective date of
this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly is allowed
to be completed after the effective date of this amendatory
Act once an approval is issued by the Illinois State Police and
any applicable waiting period under Section 24-3 has expired.

 

This seems to say that only transfers which had been approved by ISP will be allowed, and yet, the ISP, following the Court's direction in Hurtado, offers this on their website:

 

Quote

 

Illinois State Police have been fielding an increase in requests for clarification on how to abide by the waiting period and when it begins.

According to 720 ILCS 5/24-3(g) the waiting period of 72 hours does not begin until after its application for purchase has been made. The statute defines "application" as:

"For purposes of this paragraph (g), "application" means when the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm."

In People vs. Hurtado, 208 Ill.App.3d 110 (2nd District, 1991), the Second District Appellate Court took the position that "application" was a "request". The court said: "We therefore conclude that the legislature intended that the term "application" have the meaning of "request" and the statutory requirement is an informal request to purchase a firearm. Since we believe the legislature intended that "application" mean "request," we shall use the terms "application" and "request" interchangeably."

Illinois statute picks up on the Court's reasoning in Hurtado, and formalizes that there is in fact intent to buy a firearm by virtue of an agreement. The statute does not spell out what needs to be in the agreement, or the manner in which it is to be memorialized.

ISP concludes that the waiting period to purchase a firearm as defined under state law, 720 ILCS 5/24-3(g) begins when the buyer and seller reach the "agreement" to purchase the firearm and that agreement may be formalized in a number of ways. As the FFL will be required to answer any questions raised by ATF inspectors as to how the waiting period was observed, ISP suggest that FFLs memorialize the agreement in some form that is verifiable and consistent with each purchaser. 

 

 

Given that the dealer isn't required to confirm eligibility until the actual transfer, doesn't the law disenfranchise people who had guns on layaway, whether formal or informal, who had not yet had their FTIPS performed?

[GunCollector]

On 1/16/2023 at 9:19 AM, Tango7 said:

While IANAL, I happened to notice this in the law:

 

 

This seems to say that only transfers which had been approved by ISP will be allowed, and yet, the ISP, following the Court's direction in Hurtado, offers this on their website:

 

 

Given that the dealer isn't required to confirm eligibility until the actual transfer, doesn't the law disenfranchise people who had guns on layaway, whether formal or informal, who had not yet had their FTIPS performed?

Interesting, thanks for sharing as I did not understand this.  I use two different FFLs - one starts the waiting period when the gun arrives in his store.  The other starts at the transaction between me and the buyer.   So given most of my guns are shipped, by the time they arrive my three days is up.   Now I understand why/how he can do this.

 

However, as far as Illinois' AWB is concerned, the background check had to be initiated before the bill was passed. Still SOL!

[soundguy]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:53 AM, lilguy said:

What group has the best track record pushing back against these laws and would take on Illinois. No ban has been permanently reversed yet on constitutional grounds. Is it being suggested that we give smaller amounts to multiple groups or is there a single group with the most experience that can carry on the legal fight. Seems we may dividing out forces at the beginning of the war.

Is sending all funds to IC and allowing our group to decide where to direct them an option?

 

I believe there are two or three combined groups filing different suits, addressing different aspects of the new law.

 

You can donate money to IC, earmarked for the "Litigation Fund".

Todd Vandermyde listed the group(s) he is working with in a video.

 

I trust each group is a great place to donate to. If I had a favorite group addressing an aspect of the law I felt more strongly about, I would donate directly to that group. For now, IC is my choice.

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

[IH8IL]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:43 PM, GunCollector said:

Interesting, thanks for sharing as I did not understand this.  I use two different FFLs - one starts the waiting period when the gun arrives in his store.  The other starts at the transaction between me and the buyer.   So given most of my guns are shipped, by the time they arrive my three days is up.   Now I understand why/how he can do this.

 

However, as far as Illinois' AWB is concerned, the background check had to be initiated before the bill was passed. Still SOL!

Also you have to keep in mind, if the place you bought from included the serial number in the reciept or not. I imagine if they have a serial number, it can be done? Theres ffl’s here and maybe they could answer that.

[ddan]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:19 AM, Tango7 said:

While IANAL, I happened to notice this in the law:

 

 

This seems to say that only transfers which had been approved by ISP will be allowed, and yet, the ISP, following the Court's direction in Hurtado, offers this on their website:

 

 

Given that the dealer isn't required to confirm eligibility until the actual transfer, doesn't the law disenfranchise people who had guns on layaway, whether formal or informal, who had not yet had their FTIPS performed?

That is not what it says. It says that if the FFL commenced the FTIP before the Governor signed the bill, then the FFL may complete that transaction once the approval is complete and the waiting period have passed.

[Tango7]

On 1/16/2023 at 2:41 PM, ddan said:

That is not what it says. It says that if the FFL commenced the FTIP before the Governor signed the bill, then the FFL may complete that transaction once the approval is complete and the waiting period have passed.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

I understand that they said that transfers where the FTIP has been performed will be allowed. I'm not disputing that as it's plainly written (unlike most of this dreck).

 

What I'm saying is that, under Hurtado, and the advice previously offered by the ISP, before this Pile Of Shavings law was enacted, a transfer was deemed to have started when the buyer and seller agreed to the sale. While an FTIP had to be performed before the sale concluded and the firearm was transferred, the performance of the FTIP had no bearing on when the transfer began.

 

With the passage of this dreck, any verbal sales, or layaways that had not yet had the FTIP performed were null and void.

[bmyers]

Well, with the courts opened back up today, will this be the week that we see the first official lawsuit to the new law?

 

 

[ddan]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:24 PM, Tango7 said:

Maybe I'm missing your point.

I understand that they said that transfers where the FTIP has been performed will be allowed. I'm not disputing that as it's plainly written (unlike most of this dreck).

 

What I'm saying is that, under Hurtado, and the advice previously offered by the ISP, before this Pile Of Shavings law was enacted, a transfer was deemed to have started when the buyer and seller agreed to the sale. While an FTIP had to be performed before the sale concluded and the firearm was transferred, the performance of the FTIP had no bearing on when the transfer began.

 

With the passage of this dreck, any verbal sales, or layaways that had not yet had the FTIP performed were null and void.

Yes, and online purchases could be carried off same day as firearm shows up at local FFL if that was 72 hours after purchase and buyer gets an immediate approval from ISP/FTIP. The waiting period and FTIP are separate things, and while the waiting period for a gun bought online Monday 1/9 at noon would be up Thursday at noon, unless the local FFL received the firearm before 1/10 AND buyer went to the shop to do the 4473, no FTIP could be done.  So it is still correct that the performance of the FTIP has no bearing on the when the transfer began. Pedantic, i know.
 

[CPD#127]

Freedoms Steel posted a short update video and from another source I saw this filed today.

 

[cybermgk]

 

[Mitch]

So, help a non-lawyer knuckle dragger out here. If 8 other states bans haven’t been over turned post Bruen, why is everyone so convinced there will be a stay/TRO/injunction and ultimately win for the Illinois ban?  The last I heard was the Supreme Court kicked a case back to a lower court and told them basically to read Bruen and try again. If that’s the case, why not just reverse the decision?

 

Don’t get me wrong, I think this is as unconstitutional as it gets. I also think the cook county ammo tax is analogous to a poll tax, though, and that’s still in place.  I’m just trying to manage my expectations and be objective here. Obviously it should be over turned. But will it?  And if so, in my lifetime?