Jump to content

Harrel v. Raoul (S.D. Ill. 2023) - Gun/Mag Ban - SAF/ISRA/FPC


Upholder

Recommended Posts

Filed in Federal court, Southern District of Illinois   Docket

 

Plaintiffs Dane Harrel, C4 Gun Store, Marengo Guns, ISRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation

Defendants Kwame Raoul, Brendan F. Kelly, James Gomric, Jeremy Walker, Patrick D. Kennally, Richard Watson, Jarrod Peters, Robb Tadelman

 

COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs.(Sigale, David) (Entered: 01/17/2023):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.1.0.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really hit the common use aspect.  They also seemed to try and anticipate some opposing arguments up front (with quite a few references to past precedents, history, and the following

 

But to be banned, a firearm must be both dangerous and unusual. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 417 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring). Arms that are in common use—as the firearms and magazines Illinois has banned unquestionably are—cannot be unusual or dangerous. Therefore, they cannot be banned, and the Illinois laws challenged herein must be declared unconstitutional.

 

Wonder at not mentioning the vagueness of the law, and how that encompasses so many semi-auto rifles and shotguns.  Focuses more on the types in the named section.  Not legal enough to know if that is smart, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 3:44 PM, cybermgk said:

They really hit the common use aspect.  They also seemed to try and anticipate some opposing arguments up front (with quite a few references to past precedents, history, and the following

 

 

 

 

Wonder at not mentioning the vagueness of the law, and how that encompasses so many semi-auto rifles and shotguns.  Focuses more on the types in the named section.  Not legal enough to know if that is smart, or not.

 

If they found it to be unconstitutionally vague the state could simply pass a new, equally restrictive but more understandable version of the law.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 8:54 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

You know I don’t have an AR or a need for one really.  But if they strike down the ban it sure is tempting to get one just because.

Funny. I was talking to my wife this morning and told her the second I am able I am buying the assaultiest of assault weapons I can find. Just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 8:24 PM, mauserme said:

 

If they found it to be unconstitutionally vague the state could simply pass a new, equally restrictive but more understandable version of the law.

 

 

I get that, and thought of that.  Attacking it solely on it's vagueness, which is Unconstitutional, in and of itself, guarantees that response. I was speaking/thinking along the lines, about that clause and those clauses alone (shrouds for rifles), and the rules for a AW Shotgun, are so vague they include all semi=auto rifles that take a detachable magazine, and almost every semi-auto shotgun.  Not as an ONLY avenue of attack, but in addition.

 

It appears, or I am assuming, as is, the logic is if we show it is Unconstitutional for an AR, or AK47, the 'evilest' of them all, then all 'lesser' semi-autos that fall victim to this pile of a law join the party.  Ergo, go that route of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Harrel v. Raoul (S.D. Ill. 2023) - Gun/Mag Ban - SAF/ISRA/FPC
  • Molly B. pinned this topic
On 1/27/2023 at 2:00 PM, Hap said:

Yeah, good luck with that. Pre NYSRPA v Bruen this sort of thing stood a chance; now it's just a trash can stuffer.

 

Understanding that Bruen took care of this argument .....Unusual is understood to mean "uncommon", or "rare".

 

The (legal) population of the United States is approximately 330,000,000. Divided by roughly 20,000,000 AR15s, that comes to one AR15 per every 16.5 Americans. 1 per 16.5 Americans hardly qualifies as "unusual".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to say,  They all just about tripped over each other to rush and pass this law. Patted themselves on the back and brayed "See you in court!" .  Committees hand fed and consulted by Moms finest lawyers and lobbyists.  If this was such a brilliantly composed and constitutionally correct legislation........ Why does the states attorneys office need 1 iota of extra time in the manner of delay to defend this ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys a while back i asked valinda to look up the number of times the AG's office has done this very thing and she did a thread on that. If you all could help and go look in thos requests for more time the number of times they cited the same thing as #9 in other briefs and requests for extensions. 

 

your help in this is apprecaited

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 1/27/2023 at 2:32 PM, Tvandermyde said:

Guys a while back i asked valinda to look up the number of times the AG's office has done this very thing and she did a thread on that. If you all could help and go look in thos requests for more time the number of times they cited the same thing as #9 in other briefs and requests for extensions. 

 

your help in this is apprecaited

 

 

I've done that work for all the cases I could find dockets for:

 

I see now that you want more detailed information than just the count.  The work done in/linked from that thread should be a good starting point for someone.  I'm out of town all weekend so I wouldn't be able to help until Sunday evening, soonest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what Dr Spritzer has to add on the history of gun laws considering he previously wrote “A handful of laws established outright, categorical bans that criminalized the sale or exchange of firearms. All were enacted in the post-Civil war era.”

 

Hopefully he can expound further on the lack of gun bans around our country’s founding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2023 at 2:12 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

Understanding that Bruen took care of this argument .....Unusual is understood to mean "uncommon", or "rare".

 

The (legal) population of the United States is approximately 330,000,000. Divided by roughly 20,000,000 AR15s, that comes to one AR15 per every 16.5 Americans. 1 per 16.5 Americans hardly qualifies as "unusual".

 

They are going to argue that "assault weapons" and mags > 15 are not often used in self-defense so they aren't covered under the 2A, Heller, or Bruen.  It is their legal strategy/theory to narrow the scope of Bruen.   

 

The way to counter argue that is semi-auto weapons are not assault weapons. They've been reclassified into assault weapons by politicians outside of the Federal NFA that regulates machine guns aka real assault weapons. Semi-autos are the number one owned and used firearm and fall under Heller.  And it doesn't matter if they are semi-auto handguns, ranch style rifles, M14 style rifles, AR-15 style rifles, or shotguns. One trigger pull releases one bullet and Illinois' AWB banned almost every semi-auto rifle. Standard size handguns tend to have mag capacity over 15 rounds which makes those common use and fall under Heller.

Their response will be  to argue that because 9 states ban semi-autos that makes them unusual, and because semi-autos can cause carnage that also makes them dangerous.

I believe it is the same argument that New York (or is it Maryland) is using... maybe they are all using it.   


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2023 at 4:01 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

They are going to argue that "assault weapons" and mags > 15 are not often used in self-defense so they aren't covered under the 2A, Heller, or Bruen.  It is their legal strategy/theory to narrow the scope of Bruen.   

 

The way to counter argue that is semi-auto weapons are not assault weapons. They've been reclassified into assault weapons by politicians outside of the Federal NFA that regulates machine guns aka real assault weapons. Semi-autos are the number one owned and used firearm and fall under Heller.  And it doesn't matter if they are semi-auto handguns, ranch style rifles, M14 style rifles, AR-15 style rifles, or shotguns. One trigger pull releases one bullet and Illinois' AWB banned almost every semi-auto rifle. Standard size handguns tend to have mag capacity over 15 rounds which makes those common use and fall under Heller.

Their response will be  to argue that because 9 states ban semi-autos that makes them unusual, and because semi-autos can cause carnage that also makes them dangerous.

I believe it is the same argument that New York (or is it Maryland) is using... maybe they are all using it.   


 

That argument is irrelevant- the Second does not specify “self defense” any more than it specifies “hunting”….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...