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

[Euler]

On 1/31/2023 at 3:35 PM, Jeffrey said:

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?

 

The TRO was not upheld on equal protection grounds. It was upheld on procedural grounds, specifically the midnight amendments to unrelated bills precluded public debate.

[cbunt32]

On 1/31/2023 at 3:20 PM, Euler said:

 

The TRO was not upheld on equal protection grounds. It was upheld on procedural grounds, specifically the midnight amendments to unrelated bills precluded public debate.

It was upheld on Count IV which was the equal protection allegation 

[Molly B.]

On 1/31/2023 at 2:40 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?

 

 

Only if the local gun store is a named plaintiff as well.

[Upholder]

The appeals court ruling: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/9a162f46-797f-443e-996e-af004c07dfb7/Accuracy Firearms, LLC v. Pritzker, 2023 IL App (5th) 230035.pdf

[Euler]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:26 PM, cbunt32 said:

It was upheld on Count IV which was the equal protection allegation 

 

It may have been count IV of the complaint, the their words say procedure.

 

Opinion said:

...

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.

...

 

It's worth noting that the court doesn't question what the goal of the legislation is. It assumes that the purpose of "public safety" is as stated, rather than "culture war."

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Quote

¶ 63 Here, we need only determine if plaintiffs presented a fair question regarding the four
requirements for a TRO: (1) a clear and ascertainable right in need of protection, (2) no adequate
remedy at law, (3) irreparable harm without the TRO, and (4) a likelihood of success on the merits.
Mohanty, 225 Ill. 2d at 62. For the reasons set forth above, we find plaintiffs alleged sufficient
facts to establish a prima facie case addressing both the first and fourth requirements. Defendants’
37
response only claimed monetary damages for the business owners, and we have no facts that would
allow us to find that money damages would eliminate the potential constitutional violation alleged
by plaintiffs. “[W]hen a violation of constitutional rights has been alleged, a further showing of
irreparable injury is not required if what is at stake is not monetary damages.” Makindu, 2015 IL
App (2d) 141201, ¶ 42. Accordingly, we find that plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts for a TRO to
issue on count IV.

 

Quote

¶ 65 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
38
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.

 

Quote

¶ 62 Regardless, accepting defendants’ recent proclamations as to Act’s underlying purpose and
the basis for the exemptions, plaintiffs’ oral argument that “other rational and logical exemptions”
should have been included, assuming the criteria was based solely on employment and/or training,
is both compelling and sufficient. The fundamental rights at stake require lawmakers to “narrowly
tailor” legislation to effectuate its purpose. In re D.W., 214 Ill. 2d at 313. Perhaps, as suggested
during the circuit court hearing, some of the plaintiffs’ employment render them more or equally
qualified to possess and purchase weapons than the qualifications required for the exempted
classes. Perhaps, some of the plaintiffs’ training is equal to, or superior to, that of the exempted
classes. We note, however, even if plaintiffs’ training is not, it would seem logical—given that the
plaintiffs are allowed to retain the now prohibited weapons, if properly registered—that the
legislation would allow such plaintiffs to obtain sufficient training so that the legislative
prohibitions would be equally unnecessary for themIn any . event, we find plaintiffs’ oral
allegations sufficient to address this issue. “A TRO should not be refused *** merely because the
court may not be absolutely certain the plaintiff has the right he claims.” Stocker Hinge, 94 Ill. 2d
at 541-42.

The majority opinion shows there is a likelihood to succeed on violation of equal protection, and the lack of legislative process.

In addition, the court found the plaintiffs had established a case that the Second Amendment was in need of protection (Count1) and that they are likely to succeed on merits (count 4). 

I'd say this was a fairly good ruling.  

 

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

One more thing...  

The majority opinion stated they were going to continue to interest balance.  Which, I guess they can, because they are a state court. 

 

Quote

¶ 64 Our analysis, however, is not complete without considering whether the “equities warrant
the entry of such an order.” Id. ¶ 47. This balancing analysis weighs the benefits of granting the
injunction against the possible injury to the opposing party and its effect on the public interest. Id.
Here, weighing a fundamental right against potentially bruised egos or political pride is no contest.
However, the effect on public interest is more challenging as we grapple with a fundamental right
to bear and keep arms that allows plaintiffs to defend themselves or their families against a desire
to protect the citizens of this state from the random atrocities associated with mass shootings. We
hold no crystal ball allowing us to determine the likelihood of potential harm if the TRO is granted,
but we temper our lack of prescience with recognition that both interests—whether through the
regulation of firearms or through the fundamental right to keep and bear arms—are based on the
increased desire to protect and defend loved ones in light of these horrifying and devastating
shootings.

 

[Upholder]

I will note that the Appeals court ruling spend a number of paragraphs stating that while they are overturning the TRO on the Three Readings claim II, they appear to be very unhappy with the behavior of the legislature in this matter.  They go on to state:

Quote

¶ 46 We further note that our ruling herein provides plaintiffs with the opportunity to attempt to
present this issue to the one court with authority to determine if now is the appropriate time to
revisit this: the Illinois Supreme Court itself. See, e.g., Gardner v. Mullins, 234 Ill. 2d 503 (2009)
(allowing appeal, via Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315 (eff. Oct. 15, 2007), of appellate court’s
ruling on a TRO); see also Austin v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 300,
2022 IL 128205 (majority of Illinois Supreme Court members denying, as moot, petition for leave
to appeal decision of appellate court regarding TRO; two members of Illinois Supreme Court
dissenting from decision to deny petition for leave to appeal appellate court’s TRO ruling). In light
of the egregious violations that have been alleged in this case—which, at this point, must be taken
as true—we encourage the Illinois Supreme Court to revisit this issue in light of its earlier warnings
that the actions of the General Assembly might force it to do so.

 

[Upholder]

The Appeals court also notes that the IL Supreme Court has recently found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right (which the defense is arguing is not the case in Bevis v Naperville):

 

Quote

¶ 53 More recently, the Illinois Supreme Court specifically pronounced that the right to bear
arms was a fundamental right under the second amendment of the United States Constitution. See
Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Ali, 2021 IL 126014, ¶ 28.

 

[Upholder]

Additionally:

Quote

¶ 54 While there is no dispute that the Illinois Supreme Court did not find the right to bear arms
under the Illinois Constitution was a fundamental right in 1984 when deciding Kalodimos, it is
equally undisputable that the Illinois Supreme Court now accepts the second amendment as a
“fundamental right” guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the fourteenth amendment.
Id. We cannot ignore the fact that adherence to Kalodimos, in light of the more recent Illinois
Supreme Court decisions, runs afoul of the both the supremacy clause and the fourteenth
amendment.

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:19 PM, Upholder said:

Additionally:

 

 

The more and more I read this ruling, the more and more I like it.  

 

This decision wasn't a home run, but it was a solid double that got a runner home, and sets us up for a big inning. 

 

 

[davel501]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:25 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

The more and more I read this ruling, the more and more I like it.  

 

This decision wasn't a home run, but it was a solid double that got a runner home, and sets us up for a big inning. 

 

 

 

The best part is that it's another direction that they are boxed in on. They need to look like complete and utter fools by the time this is over.

[springfield shooter]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:13 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

One more thing...  

The majority opinion stated they were going to continue to interest balance.  Which, I guess they can, because they are a state court. 

 

 

 

Admitting I'm no legal beagle....if the "fundamental right" is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution (and considering the Constitution's Supremacy Clause), I don't see how. Well, "how" they can, and then make it stick. 

[springfield shooter]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:14 PM, Upholder said:

I will note that the Appeals court ruling spend a number of paragraphs stating that while they are overturning the TRO on the Three Readings claim II, they appear to be very unhappy with the behavior of the legislature in this matter.  They go on to state:

 

 

So if the state Supreme Court won't take up the matter of bogus three readings procedures, there must be a way to take that to federal court as well. Otherwise, there is no rule of law for the state's citizens to petition for a "redress of grievances". 

[Euler]

On 1/31/2023 at 6:11 PM, springfield shooter said:

So if the state Supreme Court won't take up the matter of bogus three readings procedures, there must be a way to take that to federal court as well. Otherwise, there is no rule of law for the state's citizens to petition for a "redress of grievances". 

 

From the state supreme court it would have to go to the US Supreme Court, which would defer to the state supreme court on matters of state law, so probably wouldn't grant a petition for certiorari.

[Upholder]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:13 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

The majority opinion stated they were going to continue to interest balance.  Which, I guess they can, because they are a state court. 

 

Note that they are talking purely about which parties would be harmed most with regards to the issuance of the TRO.  They are not discussing the subject matter in any way in this particular paragraph.

[yurimodin]

I think just like the SCOTUS cases involved with desegregation its going to take some time for these thick skulled communists to get Heller & Bruen through their heads.

[mauserme]

On 1/31/2023 at 5:11 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

So if the state Supreme Court won't take up the matter of bogus three readings procedures, there must be a way to take that to federal court as well. Otherwise, there is no rule of law for the state's citizens to petition for a "redress of grievances". 

 

The state is arguing that the Illinois Constitution mandates only a mechanical reading of a bill by title, three times on three different days, with no underlying purpose for those readings.

 

In my view, the spirit of the requirement is to put all interested parties on notice that a particular piece of legislation is moving through the process in order to ensure open, honest government of the type Speaker Welch said he was committed to.  It doesn't make any sense to require 3 readings if those readings lead to nothing else in the legislative process.

 

 

[1700715]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-loses-appeal-gun-control-law-leaving-restraining-order-effect

 

After an appeal from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois' Fifth District appellate court ruled on Tuesday in a 2-to-1 decision that the temporary restraining order can stay in place, and also extends it statewide. Previously, the temporary restraining order only applied to the plaintiffs.

 

Taken from Fox News. 

Edited February 1, 2023 at 01:32 AM by 1700715

[Upholder]

Unfortunately, their reporting is misleading.  The ruling does not alter the TRO in question, which applied only the to 866 named plaintiffs and still only applies to those plaintiffs.

 

It does mean that the 2nd case, in White county, will very likely issue a TRO for those plaintiffs, which again will not apply to the whole state.

[Molly B.]

https://www.wsiltv.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-restraining-order-on-illinois-gun-ban/article_9ba38604-a1cd-11ed-bfee-97559c9ebaf7.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WSIL_News_3

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

Fox32 News Chicago is reporting that the TRO covers the entire state.  I believe Fox32 is incorrect.   


https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-court-expands-restraining-order-to-cover-entire-state

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 at 01:44 AM by Dumak_from_arfcom

[Molly B.]

Kwame to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court.

 

 

https://www.wsiltv.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-restraining-order-on-illinois-gun-ban/article_9ba38604-a1cd-11ed-bfee-97559c9ebaf7.html

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/31/2023 at 7:43 PM, Molly B. said:

Kwame to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court.

 

 

https://www.wsiltv.com/news/appeals-court-upholds-restraining-order-on-illinois-gun-ban/article_9ba38604-a1cd-11ed-bfee-97559c9ebaf7.html

He can't possibly do that.  He told the federal judge he needs more time because they have to much work. 

Edited February 1, 2023 at 02:05 AM by Dumak_from_arfcom
purple

[Xwing]

On 1/31/2023 at 8:41 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Fox32 News Chicago is reporting that the TRO covers the entire state.  I believe Fox32 is incorrect.   


https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-court-expands-restraining-order-to-cover-entire-state

 

 

I concur.

 

I just read the entire Decision on the TRO, but don't see where it would apply to the entire state.  The important part is on page 38:  

"However, for the reasons set forth above, we affirm the TRO issued for count IV".  So they affirm the same TRO, not expand it. 

 

Am I missing something?

[Euler]

On 1/31/2023 at 9:35 PM, Xwing said:

....  Am I missing something?

 

Nope.

[steveTA84]

DeVore is subpoenaing the ILGA 

 

 

[davel501]

This is glorious. 

[steveTA84]

On 2/2/2023 at 7:24 AM, davel501 said:

This is glorious. 

Also, if you’re a plaintiff in one of the cases already, looks like you can also be a part of an upcoming federal lawsuit regarding all of this LOL 

[sologuy]

On 2/2/2023 at 7:43 AM, steveTA84 said:

Also, if you’re a plaintiff in one of the cases already, looks like you can also be a part of an upcoming federal lawsuit regarding all of this LOL 

 

I'm curious to hear others opinions on this before I sign up.