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

[jcable2]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:42 PM, Flynn said:

 

It will be interesting to see how they defend the equal protection claim as being constitutional, I just can't for the life of me see any valid argument based on the judges wording in that matter.

They didn't even try to defend it, just said it doesn't matter, the plaintiffs cannot make an equal protections claim because there is no precedence. That they can not challenge it under equal protections because that challenge would better be suited as a Second amendment claim. From the transcript.

"  Your Honor, this is squarely foreclosed by precedent.
"Repackaging a claim that is more
appropriately brought under a different Constitutional provision, here the Second Amendment as an equal protection claim, will not usurp the legal framewOrk that is traditionally implied. " That is Culp Raoul, the Attorney General, 921 F.3rd 646. It's a case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 2019, and the essence of that holding put another way is that an equal protection claim prenmised on a violation of a Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not cognizable as an equal protection claim. It cannot proceed as an equal protection claim. If it is brought at all, it must be brought under the Second Amendment.
A equal protection claim based on an infringement of Second Amendment"

More of them telling the judge he is not allowed to do something. They done that allot, kept telling the judge what he is not allowed to do. 

[JTHunter]

On 1/20/2023 at 9:34 PM, jcable2 said:

More of them telling the judge he is not allowed to do something. They done that allot, kept telling the judge what he is not allowed to do. 

 

And it appears that this judge is willing and able (so far) to push back.  Let's hope that doesn't change.

[mousegun6]

I just read the judge's TRO and he chopped JB's pleadings into little bite-sized pieces and fed them back to him for dinner. God bless this judge. It gives me hope for the future in Illinois.

[mab22]

On 1/20/2023 at 9:34 PM, jcable2 said:

They didn't even try to defend it, just said it doesn't matter, the plaintiffs cannot make an equal protections claim because there is no precedence. That they can not challenge it under equal protections because that challenge would better be suited as a Second amendment claim. From the transcript.

"  Your Honor, this is squarely foreclosed by precedent.
"Repackaging a claim that is more
appropriately brought under a different Constitutional provision, here the Second Amendment as an equal protection claim, will not usurp the legal framewOrk that is traditionally implied. " That is Culp Raoul, the Attorney General, 921 F.3rd 646. It's a case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 2019, and the essence of that holding put another way is that an equal protection claim prenmised on a violation of a Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not cognizable as an equal protection claim. It cannot proceed as an equal protection claim. If it is brought at all, it must be brought under the Second Amendment.
A equal protection claim based on an infringement of Second Amendment"

More of them telling the judge he is not allowed to do something. They done that allot, kept telling the judge what he is not allowed to do. 

So they brought up culp v Raoul, which was decided with intermediate scrutiny balancing state needs blah blah blah. It was also a 2A claim which had discrimination in there as well. 
If I understand things now post Bruen, there is no ore intermediate scrutiny with anything involving the 2A.

My guess is the state looses here, all the way. 
Does this mean that culp can get a second try post Bruen? 

[mab22]

On 1/21/2023 at 8:33 AM, mousegun6 said:

I just read the judge's TRO and he chopped JB's pleadings into little bite-sized pieces and fed them back to him for dinner. God bless this judge. It gives me hope for the future in Illinois.

Where did you find the text? 
 

[Molly B.]

On 1/21/2023 at 8:39 AM, mab22 said:

Where did you find the text? 
 

 

 

 

Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker Temporary Restraining Order.pdf

[mab22]

On 1/21/2023 at 8:43 AM, Molly B. said:

 

 

 

Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker Temporary Restraining Order.pdf 448.07 kB · 0 downloads

Thanks! just found a link in one of the other threads.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/thecentersquare.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/a3/da3e9e10-9914-11ed-9a42-3fd24fdd0551/63cb1aeea723b.pdf.pdf

 

[steveTA84]

Right on, judge, right on 

[DoYouFeelLucky]

So Prickster continues with the "you cannot question the King" defense.  Great job by the judge.  We will find a job for him here in IA after they run him out of IL.

[Upholder]

Transcript of the TRO Hearing on 1/19/2023 provided by Edgar County Watchdogs

[steveTA84]

On 1/21/2023 at 9:02 AM, Upholder said:

Transcript of the TRO Hearing on 1/19/2023 provided by Edgar County Watchdogs

What lovely arguments by the state. 

[Upholder]

 

 

This is uninformed at best, and flat out lying at worst as the MD AWB Bianchi v Frosh was Granted, Vacated, and Remanded...

[steveTA84]

The judge obviously saw right through the BS the state was arguing. And he got the state on record LOL 

[Upholder]

 

So, the lawyers for the state argued, in court, that PA 102-1116 (HB5471) has no other impact on the right to keep and bear arms for buyers/owners outside the need to register as of Jan 1, 2024.

[Upholder]

Quote

Now turning to the individual Plaintiffs, Your
Honor, I've already discussed briefly that those who possess
the assault weapons listed in the Act can still continue to
possess the weapons. Those who wish to purchase assault
weapons can still bare arms, and that's an important point,
Your Honor, because what they alleged is that they are being
harmed by their right to bare arms, but District of Columbia
v. Heller says that the Second Amendment does not provide

quote a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. And that's 554
U.S. 570 at 626.
The collection of a particular weapon is not what's
protected by the Second Amendment. It's the right to keep
and bare arms generally. Not a specific weapon. And in
Pena v. Lindley, which is an Eastern District of California
Court from 2015, stated that the selection of particular
arms is not part of the right to bare arms. And that's 2015
WL 854684. So even those who don't currently possess an
assault weapon that is prohibited under the Act still have a
right to bare arms.

 

[Upholder]

Quote

Bruen specifically says that regulation is allowed
under the Second Amendment as long as it is not so
exorbitant that it essentially takes away the right to bare
arms. And that's the same thing the Heller court said in
regards to the D.C. laws that the Court found ultimately led
on a ban of an operable handgun in the home. No, you need
to have an operable handgun in the home in order to be able
to exercise your right to possess a gun because an
inoperable handgun is essentially not being able to exercise
your Second Amendment rights.

 

Heller said and Bruen reiterated that you cannot ban weapons "in common use at the time".  Caetano found that 200k owned by the public was "common" -- how do they square that with banning something that there are more than 20 million lawfully possessed?

 

 

 

Quote

And we've still shown that their right to bare arms
is not being infringed here by the Act.

 

That was optimistic, at best.

[steveTA84]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:45 AM, Upholder said:

 

Heller said and Bruen reiterated that you cannot ban weapons "in common use at the time".  Caetano found that 200k owned by the public was "common" -- how do they square that with banning something that there are more than 20 million lawfully possessed?

 

 

 

 

That was optimistic, at best.

In order to continue the privilege...er...right to posses a legally acquired AR-15, I must register it with the state police, with knowledge that I am potentially incriminating myself should rules/laws change, and if I don’t register it I am committing a felony, even though all

of this is in violation of federal law via the FOPA. Yeah, just a tad of an infringement....

[mousegun6]

How could the states attorneys say this BS with a straight face? They have no shame and no sense of what justice means. They hold the people in utter and complete disregard and contempt.

How these people sleep at night is beyond me. No concept of a moral compass. This law was passed in an illegal manner and infringes on my rights under the constitution. Period.

 

These lawmakers and attorneys should take a look in the mirror and ask if their kids will be proud of them for what they are doing. Come to think of it, their kids probably have not been taught to tell the difference between right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil, or what a constitutes a decent human being.

 

Shame of these people. God bless the judges who are brave enough to follow the constitution.

[crufflesmuth]

This is heartening news and reinforces what we have already known: ILGA and their MDA carpetturfing counterparts never cared about an honest debate. I'm looking forward to seeing this at the federal court.

[Flynn]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:45 AM, Upholder said:

 

Heller said and Bruen reiterated that you cannot ban weapons "in common use at the time".  Caetano found that 200k owned by the public was "common" -- how do they square that with banning something that there are more than 20 million lawfully possessed?

 

I would argue that 'common use' should not be a numerical value, but instead more so a technology and design that people choose to use at at the current time.  Numercial values can be easily manipulated due to cost, availability, time at market, public interest, or previous unconsitutional laws that forbid their use and so on, thus numerical counts should not be the test for common use...

 

If we argue it on a numerical value, then in theory the government could ban a slew of existing firearms as well as every new release arguing that there are not this or that many in use.

 

Thus I would recommend our side be proactive and not painting ourselves into a corner, we should argue that firearms (along with other self defense items) themselves are in common use and if the item in question is a firearm (or another self defense item) it falls into the common use category by default and would have to be found outside that category on an individual basis by the courts...  AKA argue the plain text of the 2nd "arms"

 

I have always wondered why we never pushed harder on the Miller 'common use' all these years, but even so I feel it was a flawed ruling as 'short barreled shotguns' should be deemed in the common use as short barreled scatter guns have been around in use forever!

Edited January 21, 2023 at 07:17 PM by Flynn

[Euler]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:13 AM, steveTA84 said:

...

...

 

He's making a Marxist argument.

 

In Marxism, rights do not belong to individuals. Rights belong to groups. Individuals have rights by being members of a (formerly oppressed) group that has rights. (Only oppressed groups have rights. Oppressors don't have rights.) Thus we have identity politics in modern times. Blacks have rights; whites don't. Women have rights, men don't. Gays have rights, straights don't. It's also how Marxists interpret the 2A. "The right of the people" to them means that the group known as "the people" has the right to bear arms; individuals don't. ("The People's Republic of" anything, really.) The government, acting in stewardship of "the people" group, chooses which individuals have rights and which don't.

 

If Marxist judges can establish Marxist philosophy as legal precedent, or even if non-Marxist judges can uncritically allow Marxist arguments like this to become legal precedent, then Marxism can (slowly) replace Westernism as law. At least, that's their dream.

 

I wouldn't characterize every anti-gunner as Marxist, but apparently Kinkead is. (I think, in fact, that most anti-gunners, as most people, never think about political philosophy at all.)

[mousegun6]

We made it to zerohedge :https://www.zerohedge.com/political/judge-grants-restraining-order-against-illinois-assault-weapon-ban

[Upholder]

Illinois appeals judge’s restraining order on gun ban

[Flynn]

On 1/23/2023 at 10:08 PM, Upholder said:

Illinois appeals judge’s restraining order on gun ban

 

"the lawsuit’s inability to prove the gun ban’s approval violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause."

 

How can the fact some get more civil rights because they are exempt from this law due to thier day job or past day job not be a violation of equal protection?  I would argue anyday that the ability to prove that is as simple as reading the black and white text of the law that creates two classes who can exercise the 2nd differently.

[jcable2]

On 1/23/2023 at 10:58 PM, Flynn said:

 

"the lawsuit’s inability to prove the gun ban’s approval violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause."

 

How can the fact some get more civil rights because they are exempt from this law due to thier day job or past day job not be a violation of equal protection?  I would argue anyday that the ability to prove that is as simple as reading the black and white text of the law that creates two classes who can exercise the 2nd differently.

Raoul’s appeal disputes those notions and says there is no evidence exemptions are granted unfairly.

 

Nice how he cannot see that any exemptions would be granted unfairly. Laws are supposed to apply equally to all citizens. Government employees should never get special exemptions for just being a government employee. He is such a clown puppet. 

 

[Molly B.]

A link to Kwame's appeal?

[Upholder]

I went looking for a docket for the Fifth Appellate Court of Illinois and could not find one.  They have a Webpage about E-Filing that has a link to re:SearchIL which is perhaps the only way to do document searches and appears to be restricted to "courts and legal professionals" because us peasants can't possibly be allowed to have access to that sort of information.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 at 06:39 PM by Upholder
added some words

[yurimodin]

On 1/20/2023 at 8:41 PM, Flynn said:

I know that many don't like this case since it's not really a 2nd based argument, but the equal protection clause argument could be HUGE if it sets precedent that cut outs violate equal protection.  That in theory could end cutouts for any and all gun laws in the state!  I have always been of the opinion that your day job should not afford you greater rights than others, it's about time the courts made this clear now that the 2nd has been spelled out as an individual civil right.

Don't get me started on mandatory Socialist Security vs public sector pensions.

[DaveIL]

On 1/24/2023 at 12:36 PM, Upholder said:

I went looking for a docket for the Fifth Appellate Court of Illinois and could not find one.  They have a Webpage about E-Filing that has a link to re:SearchIL which is perhaps the only way to do document searches and appears to be restricted to "courts and legal professionals" because us peasants can't possibly be allowed to have access to that sort of information.

 

 

All I found was this:

1/23/2023

Clerk e-filed Notice of Interlocutory Appeal with the 5th Judicial Appellate Court. Copy of Envelope Receipt on file. Verification of Filing Accepted by Appellate Court on file. Letter from Appellate Court filed.

 

https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL025015J&ocl=IL025015J,2023MR4,IL025015JL2023MR4D1

[steveTA84]

Looking at the judges 5th appellate, doesn’t appear that they’ll be ones too go along with Kwame and his shenanigans. Could be wrong, but....

Edited January 24, 2023 at 07:12 PM by steveTA84