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

[jcable2]

Supreme Court combined Tom's 3 cases but kept Dan's separate. Tom is allowing a 4th sign up now. Still $200 per person. 

[Illinois Sucks]

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

[Upholder]

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:

 

  

[springfield shooter]

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.

[mab22]

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?
 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

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.    

[JTHunter]

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"?? 🤔

[Flynn]

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.

[Hap]

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?

[Jeffrey]

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

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 2/27/2023 at 2:21 PM, Jeffrey said:

illinois

ilsantious 

[JamesW]

Any updates on the consolidation case yet?

[mab22]

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.

[Upholder]

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.

[wdnshoots]

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 

[Upholder]

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.

[wdnshoots]

Thanks for your reply. 

[wdnshoots]

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. 

[G214me]

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.

[Euler]

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.

[G214me]

Thanks Euler

[Molly B.]

What is the current status of this case?

[Euler]

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.

[lilguy]

So are shops still selling items doing so because they are part of different court actions?

[steveTA84]

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

[mab22]

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.