Accuracy Firearms, et al v Pritzker - Effingham Co - Gun/Mag Ban - Att. Thomas DeVore

[jcable2]

Granted

Payment of $310.00 applied on 01/17/2023.

THE COURT HAVING REVIEWED THE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR TRO/DECLARATORY RELIEF FINDS AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR TRO IS GRANTED AND

IS EFFECTIVE INSTANTER. DEFENDANT IS ENJOINED/PRECLUDED FROM ENFORCEMENT OF HB5471 (ALSO KNOWN AS PUBLIC ACT 102-1116), 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 ET SEQ, AND 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10 ET SEQ AGAINST ANY OF THE NAMED PARTIES UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SEE

WRITTEN ORDER. CLERKS TO NOTIFY ATTORNEYS IMMEDIATELY OF RULING WITH REQUEST FOR THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER entered and filed. Copy emailed to Atty. Devore and Atty. Kinkead.

[Quiet Observer]

A good start.

On 1/20/2023 at 4:51 PM, jcable2 said:

Granted

Payment of $310.00 applied on 01/17/2023.

THE COURT HAVING REVIEWED THE PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR TRO/DECLARATORY RELIEF FINDS AS FOLLOWS: PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR TRO IS GRANTED AND

IS EFFECTIVE INSTANTER. DEFENDANT IS ENJOINED/PRECLUDED FROM ENFORCEMENT OF HB5471 (ALSO KNOWN AS PUBLIC ACT 102-1116), 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 ET SEQ, AND 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10 ET SEQ AGAINST ANY OF THE NAMED PARTIES UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SEE

WRITTEN ORDER. CLERKS TO NOTIFY ATTORNEYS IMMEDIATELY OF RULING WITH REQUEST FOR THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER entered and filed. Copy emailed to Atty. Devore and Atty. Kinkead.

 

[steveTA84]

 

[ddan]

Well, except isn’t a non-named FFL still in violation of the act if it sells to a named plaintiff?

[Evil Porkchop]

So only applies to names parties in the law-suit or all of us in the state?

Edited January 20, 2023 at 11:00 PM by Evil Porkchop

[spec5]

I don't know if it's true or not but our local news said for the whole state.

Edited January 20, 2023 at 11:02 PM by spec5

[Evil Porkchop]

On 1/20/2023 at 5:01 PM, spec5 said:

I don't know if it's true or not but our local news said for the whole state.

I would hope so. How is a law unconstitutional/under a TRO for some and not all...

Edited January 20, 2023 at 11:04 PM by Evil Porkchop

[ragsbo]

On 1/20/2023 at 5:01 PM, spec5 said:

I don't know if it's true or not but our local news sad for the whole state

 

On 1/20/2023 at 5:00 PM, Evil Porkchop said:

So only applies to names parties in the law-suit or all of us in the state?

I can't understand why it can be unconstitutional for some but constitutional for others. Either it is or it is not.

[spec5]

It appears the SHELL bills got them into trouble.

[Blaster]

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2023/01/breaking-judge-rules-in-favor-of-former-ag-candidate-tom-devore-and-over-860-plaintiffs-halts-pritzkers-assault-weapons-ban.html

[ddan]

There are four named FFL plaintiffs.  They can sell to 800 people named.  Golf clap, but this will be an interesting angle on GDL and some other stuff

[steveTA84]

 

[Upholder]

 

[Upholder]

I'll note that JB refers to the weapons banned as "weapons of mass destruction" in his response.

[Upholder]

Copy of the TRO ruling: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/thecentersquare.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/a3/da3e9e10-9914-11ed-9a42-3fd24fdd0551/63cb1aeea723b.pdf.pdf

[Upholder]

Quote

Defendants Raoul and Prizker argue that a gun regulation such as HB 5471 does not impact a fundamental right and in doing so they cite Kalodimos v Vill. of Morton Grove, 103 Ill. 2d 483,509 (1984).  Since that time, the Illinois Supreme Court has considered this issue and found gun regulation is, in fact, subject to strict scrutiny.

 

While the IL Supreme Court may require only strict scrutiny, the SCOTUS requires a higher standard of Text, History and Tradition....

[jcable2]

Judge clearly didn't Ike the States lawyers telling him that he was not allowed to rule on the three readings rule. The State admitted to breaking the rule and said asing as we certified that we read it three times we don't really have to read it three times and there is nothing you can do about it. Looks like the judge took that as a challenge. Next date for preliminary injunction is February 1st. 

[Upholder]

Quote

B; Ill. Const; 1980, art. IV § 8(d) for failure to comply with the Three Readings Requirement.

Article IV, Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution provides that "a bill shall be read by title on three different days in each house." Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV § 8(d).  The Three Reading rule applies not only to the original bill,. but to amendments when they represent a substantial departure from the original bill.  In Giebelhausen v. Daley, 407 Ill. 24, 48 (1950), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the "complete substitution of a new bill under the original number, dealing with a subject which was not akin or closely allied to the original bill, and which was not read three times in each House, after it has been so altered, [was a] clear violation of a similar three-readings rule in the 1870 Constitution.

 

(emphasis added by me).

[Upholder]

Quote

This Court finds that the Defendants unequivocally and egregiously violated the Three Readings Rule of the Illinois Constitution in order to circumvent the Constitutional requirements and avoid public discourse.  This Court finds that due to the strict scrutiny standard required when fundamental rights are restricted and because abuse of Supreme Court rules is so pervasive, the time to revisit this practice is now.

 

This Court finds that, due to the blatant disregard for Constitutional Law, the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this claim.

 

[Molly B.]

A preliminary injunction hearing is set for 9:30 a.m. on Feb. 1.

[Molly B.]

From AG Raoul’s office…

We disagree with the court’s decision. We have filed a notice of appeal and will ask the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the TRO.

[Jeffrey]

Is it too late to join the list?

[Euler]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:31 PM, Jeffrey said:

Is it too late to join the list?

 

For the TRO, yes. It will be interesting to see what happens with injunctions.

[springfield shooter]

On 1/20/2023 at 6:57 PM, Molly B. said:

From AG Raoul’s office…

We disagree with the court’s decision. We have filed a notice of appeal and will ask the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the TRO.

 

Anyone surprised?

[Flynn]

I know that many don't like this case since it's not really a 2nd based argument, but the equal protection clause argument could be HUGE if it sets precedent that cut outs violate equal protection.  That in theory could end cutouts for any and all gun laws in the state!  I have always been of the opinion that your day job should not afford you greater rights than others, it's about time the courts made this clear now that the 2nd has been spelled out as an individual civil right.

[mab22]

So judge is leaning towards this being a 2A issue, and not games they play with hiding laws in bills that have nothing to do with law they are passing?
 

[Flynn]

On 1/20/2023 at 6:57 PM, Molly B. said:

From AG Raoul’s office…

We disagree with the court’s decision. We have filed a notice of appeal and will ask the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the TRO.

 

It will be interesting to see how they defend the equal protection claim as being constitutional, I just can't for the life of me see any valid argument based on the judges wording in that matter.

[steveTA84]

[Flynn]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:41 PM, mab22 said:

So judge is leaning towards this being a 2A issue, and not games they play with hiding laws in bills that have nothing to do with law they are passing?
 

 

No, there were I believe the claims made, two claims were procedural, one claim was that the law violated the equal protection clause.  In regards to the equal protection clause since the 2nd has been ruled an individual right, it gets mixed in with the equal protection clause as this law denies that right to some but allows it to others based on the persons day job.

[mab22]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:45 PM, Flynn said:

 

No, there were I believe the claims made, two claims were procedural, one claim was that the law violated the equal protection clause.  In regards to the equal protection clause since the 2nd has been ruled an individual right, it gets mixed in with the equal protection clause as this law denies that right to some but allows it to others based on the persons day job.

I like that, pretty clean and straight forward.