jcable2 Posted February 24, 2023 at 03:05 AM Share Posted February 24, 2023 at 03:05 AM Supreme Court combined Tom's 3 cases but kept Dan's separate. Tom is allowing a 4th sign up now. Still $200 per person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illinois Sucks Posted February 24, 2023 at 08:23 PM Share Posted February 24, 2023 at 08:23 PM I got an email from Fox Valley Shooting Range about the 4th DeVore case. I emailed them back to ask if I was a plaintiff in the lawsuit and they got an injunction, would they sell me guns from the banned list and they said they would. FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted February 27, 2023 at 12:00 AM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 12:00 AM The State's Emergency Motion for Leave to File an Oversize Petition for Leave to Appeal: https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/1f/74/12461244/129421_mot.pdf Article about the appeal by the state: https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/639874524-pritzker-raoul-no-fundamental-right-to-own-sell-assault-weapons-in-il-ask-il-high-court-to-toss-tro The state immediately opens with Interest Balancing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted February 27, 2023 at 01:39 AM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 01:39 AM On 2/26/2023 at 6:00 PM, Upholder said: The state immediately opens with Interest Balancing: Huh. I thought that wasn't a thing anymore. Do they not read the SCOTUS rulings....Or is "interest balancing" all they've got? PS: when someone opens with current events (tragic as they may be), you can figure they haven't got the law on their side. And they know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted February 27, 2023 at 02:08 AM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 02:08 AM On 2/26/2023 at 7:39 PM, springfield shooter said: Huh. I thought that wasn't a thing anymore. Do they not read the SCOTUS rulings....Or is "interest balancing" all they've got? PS: when someone opens with current events (tragic as they may be), you can figure they haven't got the law on their side. And they know it. Ironically our Illinois Supreme Court usually comes back with constitutional challenges as, “go away and find other means then come back, so I don’t know why they are even bothering to hear this. It also depends on whether or not someone brings up Nysurpa V Bruen, it wouldn’t surprise me if the court would overlook Bruen cause no one heard of it yet. 🤷♂️ Brew what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumak_from_arfcom Posted February 27, 2023 at 02:46 AM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 02:46 AM On 2/26/2023 at 8:08 PM, mab22 said: Ironically our Illinois Supreme Court usually comes back with constitutional challenges as, “go away and find other means then come back, so I don’t know why they are even bothering to hear this. It also depends on whether or not someone brings up Nysurpa V Bruen, it wouldn’t surprise me if the court would overlook Bruen cause no one heard of it yet. 🤷♂️ Brew what? The democrats know all about Bruen. They are just going to ignore it and try to find a new way to interest balance without calling it interest balancing. Dangerous will be the new interest balancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted February 27, 2023 at 04:46 AM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 04:46 AM On 2/26/2023 at 8:46 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said: The democrats know all about Bruen. They are just going to ignore it and try to find a new way to interest balance without calling it interest balancing. Dangerous will be the new interest balancing. What "plan" put forth by democrats ISN'T "dangerous"?? 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted February 27, 2023 at 07:19 PM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 07:19 PM On 2/26/2023 at 7:39 PM, springfield shooter said: Huh. I thought that wasn't a thing anymore. Do they not read the SCOTUS rulings....Or is "interest balancing" all they've got? All they have is interest bearing, so they will keep screaming it from the rooftops hoping to find some inferior courts that will continue to ignore the Supreme Court and kick the can down the road. I hope the inferior courts (even in Illinois) have some integrity left and put a dead stop to their nonsenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 27, 2023 at 07:48 PM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 07:48 PM On 2/27/2023 at 1:19 PM, Flynn said: All they have is interest bearing, so they will keep screaming it from the rooftops hoping to find some inferior courts that will continue to ignore the Supreme Court and kick the can down the road. I hope the inferior courts (even in Illinois) have some integrity left and put a dead stop to their nonsenes. What’s that word for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted February 27, 2023 at 08:21 PM Share Posted February 27, 2023 at 08:21 PM On 2/27/2023 at 1:48 PM, Hap said: What’s that word for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? illinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted February 28, 2023 at 02:35 PM Share Posted February 28, 2023 at 02:35 PM On 2/27/2023 at 2:21 PM, Jeffrey said: illinois ilsantious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesW Posted March 7, 2023 at 04:42 PM Share Posted March 7, 2023 at 04:42 PM Any updates on the consolidation case yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted March 9, 2023 at 06:51 PM Share Posted March 9, 2023 at 06:51 PM On 3/7/2023 at 10:42 AM, JamesW said: Any updates on the consolidation case yet? If it's for case #4, I think they are waiting on a hearing maybe next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted March 22, 2023 at 07:56 PM Share Posted March 22, 2023 at 07:56 PM (edited) Yesterday there was a status hearing. Devore's subpoenas have been squashed as expected with objections reserved. The Government's attempt to stay this case while the IL Supreme Court deals with the Caulkins case was denied: Plaintiffs by attys Devore and Drew. Defendants by attys Vaught, Kinkead, Cunningham, Kasper, Bruce, and Casson IL Association of Chiefs of Police by atty Leka, IL Sheriff's Association by atty Stewart. All appear remotely. Arguments heard on Defendant's Motion to Stay. For the reasons stated on the record, Motion to Stay Denied. Arguments heard on IL Sheriff Association and IL Association of Chiefs of Police Motion to Quash Subpoena. Motions to Quash granted on procedural grounds. Plaintiff granted leave to serve amended subpoenas. Substantive objections reserved and will be argued with discovery objections by Defendants on 5/4/23 1:00 PM via Zoom 358 873 0849. Edited March 22, 2023 at 07:58 PM by Upholder fix typo in Caulkins' name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdnshoots Posted May 2, 2023 at 01:56 PM Share Posted May 2, 2023 at 01:56 PM If Cualkins case looses and was to negatively affect our TRO, whats the earliest date that could potentially happen? I'm just trying to squeeze one last order that needs to be shipped out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted May 2, 2023 at 03:03 PM Share Posted May 2, 2023 at 03:03 PM At this date, the statewide Preliminary Injunction from the cases in the Southern District of Illinois Federal court would still apply and thus you should not be impacted by the IL State Supreme Court ruling against Caulkins' case unless the 7th Circuit also stays that Preliminary Injunction. The State Supreme Court hearing is in about two weeks. I would not expect a ruling immediately, but likely 4 to 8 weeks following the hearing. The 7th Circuit took two months to issue a one sentence denial in the Bevis case, so it's not very likely to change status on the Harrel case in the next week or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdnshoots Posted May 2, 2023 at 03:43 PM Share Posted May 2, 2023 at 03:43 PM Thanks for your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdnshoots Posted May 5, 2023 at 12:55 AM Share Posted May 5, 2023 at 12:55 AM Never bank on what these people will do. I picked my item up today. I specifically had it shipped to a FFL on the TRO list. Got shipped just in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted May 5, 2023 at 03:12 AM Share Posted May 5, 2023 at 03:12 AM Are those that have TRO's in the Devore cases effected by this BS stay from CA7 / Easterbrook ? I wasn't sure because those are federal and not mentioned in todays stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted May 5, 2023 at 04:54 AM Share Posted May 5, 2023 at 04:54 AM On 5/4/2023 at 11:12 PM, G214me said: Are those that have TRO's in the Devore cases effected by this BS stay from CA7 / Easterbrook ? I wasn't sure because those are federal and not mentioned in todays stay. The stay in the Barnett case affects only the Barnett injunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted May 5, 2023 at 06:06 AM Share Posted May 5, 2023 at 06:06 AM Thanks Euler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted May 24, 2023 at 02:40 PM Share Posted May 24, 2023 at 02:40 PM What is the current status of this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted May 25, 2023 at 05:47 AM Share Posted May 25, 2023 at 05:47 AM On 5/24/2023 at 10:40 AM, Molly B. said: What is the current status of this case? On March 31, petitioners (i.e., Pritzker et al.) asked for the case to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of Caulkins v Pritzker. On April 18, the IL Supreme Court granted the abeyance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilguy Posted May 25, 2023 at 09:57 AM Share Posted May 25, 2023 at 09:57 AM So are shops still selling items doing so because they are part of different court actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted May 25, 2023 at 12:41 PM Author Share Posted May 25, 2023 at 12:41 PM On 5/25/2023 at 4:57 AM, lilguy said: So are shops still selling items doing so because they are part of different court actions? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted May 25, 2023 at 05:57 PM Share Posted May 25, 2023 at 05:57 PM On 5/25/2023 at 4:57 AM, lilguy said: So are shops still selling items doing so because they are part of different court actions? The injunction the Devore received is still in effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Jim Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:13 PM Share Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:13 PM https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL025015J&ocl=IL025015J,2023MR4,IL025015JL2023MR4P1 looks like this TRO has been vacated. GAT just sent an email to that effect as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:21 PM Share Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:21 PM On 8/16/2023 at 4:13 PM, Rev Jim said: https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL025015J&ocl=IL025015J,2023MR4,IL025015JL2023MR4P1 looks like this TRO has been vacated. GAT just sent an email to that effect as well. This does not look good. Quote This matter is taken off advisement. This matter having previously come on for hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, having considered the pleadings, the arguments, and applicable authority, now being more fully advised in the premises, I find and Order as follows: Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint For Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief challenging the constitutionality of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, also known as Public Act 102-1116 or House Bill 5471. In Count I, Plaintiffs allege the act violates the three reading rule contained in the Illinois Constitution. In Count II, they allege that exceptions to the prohibition of possession, and sale of certain weapons, and devices contained in the act, violate the right to equal protection. Count III seeks a permanent injunction against enforcement based on the grounds alleged in Counts I and II. Since this court heard arguments on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its Opinion in CAULKINS v. PRITZKER, etal. 2023 IL 129453. In that case the Court held that the exemptions contained in the act did not deny equal protection, and went on to say that the Plaintiffs in that case are not similarly situated to the trained professionals to which the exceptions apply. Based on CAULKINS v. PRITZKER, Count II is dismissed with prejudice. The Court did not address the three reading rule, because the Plaintiffs in that case failed to cross-appeal from the denial of relief on those grounds in the trial court. The Illinois Supreme Court has, however previously held that because of the enrolled bill doctrine upon certification by the Speaker and the Senate President, a bill is conclusively presumed to have met all procedural requirements for passage, including the three readings rule. GEJA'S CAFE, v. METROPOLITAN PIER & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, 153 Ill. 2d 239, 258-260 (1992). Based on the enrolled bill doctrine, Count I is dismissed with prejudice. Because both Counts I and II are dismissed with prejudice, there is no underlying claim to pursue, Count III is dismissed with prejudice. Based on the foregoing, The pending Motions to Quash Non Party Subpoena and Motion to Quash Discovery Request are moot and not addressed. The Temporary Restraining Order previously entered is vacated. Clerk to provide copies of this docket entry to attorneys of record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:26 PM Share Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:26 PM (edited) Well that sucks. There are no words for what I have to say about Caulkins. Edit And What the hey!!!? How can the court "presume" the three readings were held when that was the complaint in the first place?!?! Edited August 16, 2023 at 09:31 PM by 2smartby1/2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:29 PM Share Posted August 16, 2023 at 09:29 PM Let's see what DeVore as planned now.... doubt it's refunds. THANKS CAULKINS! YOU JUST HAD TO MAKE YOUR MOVE LIKE AN @$$H---! 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