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

[yurimodin]

On 2/2/2023 at 7:03 AM, steveTA84 said:

DeVore is subpoenaing the ILGA 

 

 

HOLY S*** he is going to prove they KNEW it was unconstitutional and passed it anyway........massive balls 

[RECarry]

Critics claim "Legislative Privilege" makes this moot.  So that makes conspiracy to cram though unconstitutional actions acceptable? Not to We the People it doesn't.

The arrogance of IL privileged legislators reeks.

[davel501]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:20 AM, yurimodin said:

HOLY S*** he is going to prove they KNEW it was unconstitutional and passed it anyway........massive balls 

 

You're thinking too small. He's going to have access to all the bad things those folks are doing. All the in-fighting, adultery and off-color comments will be his to read in open court.

[byxlaw]

Now they, too, will lose some sleep. At least, I hope...

[sologuy]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:31 AM, davel501 said:

 

You're thinking too small. He's going to have access to all the bad things those folks are doing. All the in-fighting, adultery and off-color comments will be his to read in open court.

 

What are you on about?

 

 

[Steve51]

As one of the many plaintiffs in DeVore #2, I also received an invitation to be a member of the "Guardians of Liberty"

I did read the by-laws but am still undecided on how to respond.  I also am interested how others may feel.

[davel501]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:49 AM, sologuy said:

 

What are you on about?

 

 

 

It's called getting burned in discovery. He's going to take a blowtorch to them. He can keep pushing to fill in the gaps in conversations until he has everything if the judge lets him. Just telling your side piece about the bill you are voting on could make that conversation in-scope for discovery, leading into more digging to figure out their relationship to the case. Going to depend on how they do the discovery though too. If legislators are required to turn over anything then he won't get much but if he's allowed to use phone company records it could get really good.

[sologuy]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:04 AM, Steve51 said:

As one of the many plaintiffs in DeVore #2, I also received an invitation to be a member of the "Guardians of Liberty"

I did read the by-laws but am still undecided on how to respond.  I also am interested how others may feel.

 

Sounds like membership fees/dues will come in a few years.  Get a bunch of people to sign up for free, then with the verbiage here seems to hold them accountable for those membership dues... I'm probably just reading into it.

[steveTA84]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:04 AM, Steve51 said:

As one of the many plaintiffs in DeVore #2, I also received an invitation to be a member of the "Guardians of Liberty"

I did read the by-laws but am still undecided on how to respond.  I also am interested how others may feel.

I did it. Why not 🤷‍♂️

Edited February 2, 2023 at 04:15 PM by steveTA84

[SiliconSorcerer]

Everywhere I read it says ....

 

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.

[davel501]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Everywhere I read it says ....

 

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.

 

The way Devore explained it is that it is binding on all courts in the state. You'd have to file a lawsuit yourself and cite the ruling to get it applied to you, but you should now be able to do that in any court in the state.

[Talonap]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:14 AM, steveTA84 said:

I did it. Why not 🤷‍♂️

Sounds like a way to make more money in the future for Mr DeVore. Could be wrong, but what do, "The Guardians of Liberty", do? I used to be a member of the, "Uncle Mistletoe Kindness Club", when I was a kid. Didn't do anything, but could still say I was a member.

Edited February 2, 2023 at 05:00 PM by Talonap

[steveTA84]

I got clarification on the dues aspect. Makes sense.  And pretty safe to say that charges aren’t gonna pop up out of now where without notice . Part of email I got back 

 

 

 

The law office created the legal entity, but we are not the Board of Directors.

 

There are no dues at this time; before that changes, it would have to be approved.

Edited February 2, 2023 at 05:02 PM by steveTA84

[fxdpntc]

On 2/2/2023 at 7:03 AM, steveTA84 said:

DeVore is subpoenaing the ILGA 

 

That one “triggered” a few antis. LOL

 

[Upholder]

TRO issued in Devore #2:

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/white-county-issues-temporary-restraining-order-against-illinois-gun-ban/article_f0d4b1c8-a323-11ed-84c5-d7c82e257000.html

[mauserme]

Conversation about Representative Morgan has been split to a new topic titled Rep. Morgan Campaign Fundraising Ploy.

 

[steveTA84]

I have to give DeVore lots of credit. This route of attack will be harder even for Democrat judges to overturn without potentially upsetting some of their more level-headed base, especially in this environment nationwide regarding law enforcement and police brutality 

 

https://www.illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2023/02/breaking-white-county-judge-halts-pritzkers-assault-weapons-ban-cites-equal-protection-clause-in-another-blow-to-pritzker.html

 

The lawsuits are based on alleged violations of the Illinois Constitution. One alleged violation is of 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.

Judges in Effingham and White Counties, and the 5th District Appellate Court view the equal protection clause as the most credible argument in the case – and a literal “silver bullet” for DeVore and his plaintiffs.

I mean, all the idiotic legislators had to do was read Article 1 Section 2, the very first page, of the IL Constitution. No carve-outs for individuals regarding rights

[mab22]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:04 AM, Steve51 said:

As one of the many plaintiffs in DeVore #2, I also received an invitation to be a member of the "Guardians of Liberty"

I did read the by-laws but am still undecided on how to respond.  I also am interested how others may feel.

I did a speed read through the bylaws and there does not, at this time IMO, have any junk in there like the prez gets to pick his board members. 
I would like to know if there is a longer term mission for the Guardians of Liberty, or if it’s just to do the same case in Federal court. 
 

[steveTA84]

From today’s TRO. Ouch!!!!

[davel501]

"the plaintiffs win because you snuck around and did this in secret in the dark of the night" 

[Steve51]

Appreciate comments to my earlier question about becoming a member of the "Guardians of Liberty" initiated by the Thomas DeVore law group.

 

After much thought, I have signed on to be a member of this group.  It is my understanding they will be filing a Federal Lawsuit very soon.

[jcable2]

Preliminary hearing that was set for February 1st was rescheduled to February 22nd because of the appeal. 

[Yeti]

Video review of case 2 here, didn’t see it posted  elsewhere:

 

 

[THE KING]

Just watched the video. He does a great job of explaining the courts opinions. 

 

So, per the judge he issued a TRO because the bill is unconstitutional being a 2nd amendment (civil rights) issue based on the equal protection clause in the state constitution.  

 

Now here's my confusion.  If it's unconstitutional because of "Equal Protection ".  Then how is a TRO that only applies to the plaintiffs not also unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection language in the state's constitution.  

 

The logic just doesn't make sense to me.  

[2smartby1/2]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:42 PM, THE KING said:

Just watched the video. He does a great job of explaining the courts opinions. 

 

So, per the judge he issued a TRO because the bill is unconstitutional being a 2nd amendment (civil rights) issue based on the equal protection clause in the state constitution.  

 

Now here's my confusion.  If it's unconstitutional because of "Equal Protection ".  Then how is a TRO that only applies to the plaintiffs not also unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection language in the state's constitution.  

 

The logic just doesn't make sense to me.  

It does not make sense...but maybe the statewide application is coming later. 

 

I see why some outlets said the TRO was statewide being that it is binding, even though it isn't really statewide.   

 

[Upholder]

TROs are designed to prevent enforcement until a Preliminary Injunction is considered and potentially issued.  Because they are designed to be short-term (meaning in effect for weeks to months, not the full time that the case will take) they are generally only in effect for the plaintiffs.

 

The Preliminary Injunction, if issued, I would expect to impact the entire state.  That's the next round of hearings.   The Preliminary Injunction would remain in effect until the case is decided and until any Permanent Injunction would be issued.

[mab22]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:42 PM, THE KING said:

Just watched the video. He does a great job of explaining the courts opinions. 

 

So, per the judge he issued a TRO because the bill is unconstitutional being a 2nd amendment (civil rights) issue based on the equal protection clause in the state constitution.  

 

Now here's my confusion.  If it's unconstitutional because of "Equal Protection ".  Then how is a TRO that only applies to the plaintiffs not also unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection language in the state's constitution.  

 

The logic just doesn't make sense to me.  

The legal logic as I understand it :

The appellate court ruling can be applied to any Illinois court if referenced,  you just need to open a case and have a lawyer reference that ruling and you can have a TRO as well. So it kinda applies to all. I can’t explain the legal mechanics, just going by what the attorneys tell me. 

[Molly B.]

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

Has Kwame appealed Accuracy case to the IL Supreme Court yet?  How long does he have to file an appeal?

[jcable2]

On 2/7/2023 at 9:33 AM, Molly B. said:

Has Kwame appealed Accuracy case to the IL Supreme Court yet?  How long does he have to file an appeal?

I would say he has not yet based on Judici. Doesn't show any new appeal yet. Last update shows Appellate Court ruling. 

[LilJim]

Is there a time limit on how long he can appeal?