Langley et al v Kelly - IL Gun/Magazine Ban - Thomas Maag Attorney

[Talonap]

On 2/17/2023 at 8:58 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Hey, did anyone get the ISRA Thursday bulletin?  RP stated the order is for the defendants to list every banned firearm.  

"Within is the response to (16) Motions for a Preliminary Injunction, Defendants shall provide illustrative examples of each and every banned firearm under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9.  Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/13/2023."

isra-thursday-bulletin-february-16-2023.htm

RP is wrong. not "Firearm", it's "...every banned ITEM..."

[steveTA84]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:09 PM, Talonap said:

RP is wrong. not "Firearm", it's "...every banned ITEM..."

So they (ISRA) can’t even copy/paste and order now? Jeeze.....

 

I’m rooting for the ISRA, but come on. Get your s*** together 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:09 PM, Talonap said:

RP is wrong. not "Firearm", it's "...every banned ITEM..."

 

Yep, I know that. 

 

It's that they look to have changed the order from the judge which vastly changes the meaning of the order. In the next paragraph he then goes on to talk about the 170 banned firearms being a list from the anti-gun groups.  

 

Is he just old and forgetful, or are the ISRA lawyers telling him this.  

It may have been one of TV's videos, but I heard RP has claimed that the cases have been consolidated under the ISRA lawsuit. 

 

 

[Euler]

Court Order in Barnett v Raoul

Order said:

CALEB BARNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-209-SPM

** designated Lead Case

 

DANE HARREL, et al.,

Plaintiffs

vs.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-141-SPM

 

JEREMY W. LANGLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BRENDAN KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-192-SPM

 

FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES OF ILLINOIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JAY ROBERT “J.B.” PRITZKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-215-SPM

...

The above-referenced cases are consolidated for the purposes of discovery and injunctive relief, with Barnett, et al. v. Raoul, et al, 23-cv-209 designated as the lead case.

...

[Upholder]

Quote

Attorney asks judge to strike down Illinois’ gun ban as ‘unconstitutionally vague’

[...]

Maag said he’s now asking for McGlynn to issue a partial judgment that the law is too vague. He said the legislature lumped some firearms with AR platform guns incorrectly.

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_29c3b74c-0628-11ee-86d7-6307e93ce4bd.html

 

[Euler]

Bishop's a little late with this. I believe he's talking about:

 

[Upholder]

That does appear to be the case.

[Upholder]

Summary Judgement hearing on the Vagueness question brought by Maag in this case set for October 11.  

 

Maag intends to also push the 5th amendment argument if he does not prevail on Vagueness.

[Molly B.]

Thank you for the update!

[Euler]

On August 17, 2023 at 06:19 PM, Euler said:→

On August 14, there was a status meeting. Based on the status, the judge issued two orders:

1. The stay on discovery issued for the Langley complaint is lifted.
2. There will be a hearing on the vagueness argument on October 11.

The cases have been combined. All updates are in the Barnett topic.