Jump to content

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


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

On 1/24/2023 at 3:49 PM, DaveIL said:

Look what I found? I was not familiar with this one, looks like they already had the appeal written before the TRO was in place.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23577737/illinois-governors-and-attorney-generals-response-to-accuracy-firearms-v-pritzker.pdf

That is not the appeal but what they submitted to the Effingham Court to request the TRO be denied. Same garbage they repeated in court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 4:41 PM, DaveIL said:

Ok I think I found it now.

PETITION OF THE GOVERNOR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR REVIEW OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RULE 307(d)

 

https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/d11f84db-3216-4d55-b74e-21176f9b0ba9/5-23-0035 Petition_for_Review.pdf

That is a pretty sad appeal. All iser is the judge was wrong. We have no proof he was wrong but take our word for it. He was wrong because we say he was wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 5:09 PM, jcable2 said:

That is a pretty sad appeal. All iser is the judge was wrong. We have no proof he was wrong but take our word for it. He was wrong because we say he was wrong. 

 

Yeah, it's a civil rights and state Constitutional  issue and the State's defense is literally nothing more than "We are right they are wrong!" as a judge I would take that as an insult to the court!

 

And the condescending tone of "Plaintiffs, who appear to be four gun stores and hundreds of individuals" literally implies the peasants have no right to argue our authority.

 

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though according to the state constitution ARTICLE XII talks about the militia.  According to section 1 talks about how all able bodied persons are considered part of the militia.

 

 Section 3 says the general assembly is to provide organization, discipline and equipment.  So maybe they should offer training etc. since apparently per the state constitution that’s their responsibility.

 

 But even then, the US constitution supersedes the state law/constitution is I remember my civics classes from middle school correctly.

Edited by illinois_buckeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 6:59 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Though according to the state constitution ARTICLE XII talks about the militia.  According to section 1 talks about how all able bodied persons are considered part of the militia.

 

 Section 3 says the general assembly is to provide organization, discipline and equipment.  So maybe they should offer training etc. since apparently per the state constitution that’s their responsibility.

 

 But even then, the US constitution supersedes the state law/constitution is I remember my civics classes from middle school correctly.

 

You think they could make JB do PT? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2023 at 6:47 PM, Euler said:

 

Under Illinois law, it's true. The state constitution says individuals only have as much right to arms as the executive branch decides.

 

Arguing Section 2 (equal protection) of the Illinois Constititon only apply to state level laws and state level rights is IMO too clever by half, if that argument wins then there is a 14th Amendment claim to be made against Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Effingham Co - Accuracy Firearms, et al v Pritzker - Gun/Mag Ban - Att. Thomas DeVore
  • Molly B. pinned this topic

It was very interesting to be in the courtroom today to hear this case! Judge Webb  appeared at times to really question the credibility of some of the state's arguments. Attorney for our side, Bryan Drew from Benton, did an excellent job of presenting the facts of the case. Judge Webb has taken the arguments under advisement and will issue a decision as soon as he can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appellate court has upheld the TRO in Devore's Effingham case, based on count IV Equal Protection.
 

Quote


Here, we find it extremely relevant that no opportunity for discourse was provided to the citizens of this state that would allow for recognition of the competing interests in accomplishing what we believe is likely a common goal. Nor does it appear that the legislative process allowed for even a moment of debate between the lawmakers to ensure that the enactment of this law was “narrowly tailored” to effectuate the Act’s purpose in any manner that would allow a larger exempted group to retain their fundamental rights. For these reasons, we find that balancing the equities favors the issuance of a TRO for count IV, and therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the TRO for count IV.

 

 

Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) TRO.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this invoke the TRO statewide? This article seems to think so:

 

Quote

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2023/01/breaking-appellate-court-affirms-devores-equal-protection-argument-assault-weapons-ban-temporary-restraining-order-effective-statewide.html

In a serious blow to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s assault weapons ban, the 5th District Appellate Court affirmed on Tuesday Effingham County’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and goes beyond the original 866 plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, and is now binding against all courts statewide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2023 at 2:52 PM, Molly B. said:

Does this invoke the TRO statewide? This article seems to think so:

 

The opinion opens with "The narrow issue before us in this case...." That would imply that the appellate decision is no broader than the county decision. In its conclusion, the appellate court merely affirmed the county court TRO. It didn't issue any order contrary to that.

 

It does set a precedent that if anyone else seeks a TRO, they should get it.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wording from ISRA

 

In a serious blow to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s assault weapons ban, the 5th District Appellate Court affirmed on Tuesday Effingham County’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and goes beyond the original 866 plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, and is now binding against all courts statewide.
The lawsuit is based on alleged violations of the Illinois Constitution. One alleged violation is the Equal Protection Clause, because the Assault Weapons Ban provides exemptions for certain groups – for instance, active and retired law enforcement are exempted from the ban, as well as active military and private security guards.
Retired military, however, much like the general population, are not exempted from the ban. DeVore argues that these exemptions create unconstitutional classes of citizens where legislators have decided who is subject to the ban and who is not.
The Equal Protection argument was enough for the Appellate Court to affirm Effingham County Judge Joshua Morrison’s TRO.
Last Wednesday, White County Judge T. Scott Webb heard arguments from representatives of Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office, and from Tom DeVore, who is representing over 1,600 plaintiffs, including former Illinois State Senator and Republican nominee for governor Darren Bailey; 68 federal firearms dealers and 92 counties, saying the case is “under advisement” and that he would issue a ruling after further review.
However, this Appellate Court ruling will also bind Judge Webb, and will force him to issue a TRO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...