DaveIL Posted January 24, 2023 at 09:49 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 09:49 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcable2 Posted January 24, 2023 at 10:06 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 10:06 PM 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 More sharing options...
DaveIL Posted January 24, 2023 at 10:41 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 10:41 PM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveIL Posted January 24, 2023 at 10:43 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 10:43 PM (edited) Below are the remaining docs I found when I searched the case number. ITS ACTUALLY HERE... https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/471fb5e8-6257-473a-a17e-79aa5dfc0b18/5-23-0035 Notice_Interlocutory Appeal.pdf https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/903b075c-8fa6-45ba-a20d-ba63f22634c6/5-23-0035 Memorandum_Support_Rule_307(d).pdf https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/57ea945a-7c76-4c12-bc26-d18155e21312/070122.pdf Edited January 24, 2023 at 10:50 PM by DaveIL Emphasis on document location Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcable2 Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:09 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:09 PM 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 More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:19 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:19 PM (edited) 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 January 24, 2023 at 11:22 PM by Flynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveIL Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:28 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:28 PM Here is the appeal I did not do a very good job showing it after I found the docs: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/471fb5e8-6257-473a-a17e-79aa5dfc0b18/5-23-0035 Notice_Interlocutory Appeal.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:44 PM Share Posted January 24, 2023 at 11:44 PM From the memorandum in support -- they are claiming that no fundamental rights are impacted by PA 102-1116 (HB5471): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinois_buckeye Posted January 25, 2023 at 12:45 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 12:45 AM If they would actually apply the 2nd amendment as written, the colonists had just fought a war with Great Britain. They would have wanted access to what the British had. Looking at the argument above, so they’d be essentially calling the British a protected class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 25, 2023 at 12:47 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 12:47 AM On 1/24/2023 at 6:44 PM, Upholder said: From the memorandum in support -- they are claiming that no fundamental rights are impacted by PA 102-1116 (HB5471): ... Under Illinois law, it's true. The state constitution says individuals only have as much right to arms as the executive branch decides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinois_buckeye Posted January 25, 2023 at 12:59 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 12:59 AM (edited) 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 January 25, 2023 at 01:02 AM by illinois_buckeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 25, 2023 at 01:27 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 01:27 AM IL Constitution said: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Police power = executive branch power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted January 25, 2023 at 01:27 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 01:27 AM 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 More sharing options...
DaveIL Posted January 25, 2023 at 01:36 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 01:36 AM On 1/24/2023 at 7:27 PM, davel501 said: You think they could make JB do PT? Beer curls maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted January 25, 2023 at 02:08 AM Share Posted January 25, 2023 at 02:08 AM 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 More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted January 26, 2023 at 01:11 AM Author Share Posted January 26, 2023 at 01:11 AM To everyone that signed up for the 2nd lawsuit, check out the judge we got LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcable2 Posted January 26, 2023 at 02:54 AM Share Posted January 26, 2023 at 02:54 AM Anyone know anything about today's hearing in White County? Judici not much help on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted January 26, 2023 at 03:18 AM Share Posted January 26, 2023 at 03:18 AM 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 More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted January 31, 2023 at 07:20 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 07:20 PM 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 More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted January 31, 2023 at 07:52 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 07:52 PM 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 More sharing options...
sirflyguy Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:08 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:08 PM On 1/31/2023 at 1:52 PM, Molly B. said: Does this invoke the TRO statewide? This article seems to think so: Devore is going live on a few hours to explain it all. This will cause Devore's Case #2 to have a decision in line with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaster Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:15 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:15 PM https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=notif&v=755190716262917¬if_id=1675195958940161¬if_t=live_video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumak_from_arfcom Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:18 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:18 PM https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Disposition-5th.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:20 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:20 PM (edited) 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 January 31, 2023 at 08:21 PM by Euler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:23 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:23 PM Yeah based on that live video, this is not a statewide TRO, still applies only to named plaintiffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:35 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:35 PM On 1/31/2023 at 2:23 PM, Matt B said: Yeah based on that live video, this is not a statewide TRO, still applies only to named plaintiffs. This confuses me as I was understanding that part of the suits we are seeing is based on equal protections of a law. How is this equal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:40 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:40 PM Would it be legal right now for a local gun store to sell a super-sized magazine to a named plaintiff individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:53 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 08:53 PM 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 More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:17 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:17 PM On 1/31/2023 at 3:40 PM, Howard Roark said: Would it be legal right now for a local gun store to sell a super-sized magazine to a named plaintiff individual? It would be legal for a named-plaintiff gun store to sell to a named-plaintiff individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:17 PM Share Posted January 31, 2023 at 09:17 PM Attorney for the plaintiffs, Tom Devore, says today's ruling does NOT make this a statewide TRO but does mean all county circuit courts "would rely upon this ruling, meaning "it could be used by other courts statewide to rely upon." https://fb.watch/ipfKK0gdAG/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now