Jump to content

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


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

The State's Emergency Motion for Leave to File an Oversize Petition for Leave to Appeal:

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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 by Upholder
fix typo in Caulkins' name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
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

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...