Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 1/27/2023 at 1:55 PM, steveTA84 said:

OMG 

 

 

So they're going the Maryland route not the California route.

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.   


 

Maryland specifically. Tried tying it to defensive usage, but the judges called them out on that particular point, amongst others.

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.   


 

Their own (anti gunners) BS will destroy any not used in defense examples, because it is they that stopped the in depth taking of statistics by the FBI and CDC pertaining to defensive use of firearms.  But, even the most anti-gun sources, put the numbers per year, of defensive uses of firearms in the 100s of thousands.  Since, there are not a matching number of gun related homicides (just means someone was killed, even in self defense), simple logic says most of those were due to the mere presence of the weapon.  And what would deter like that, better than others, the more capable firearms.  ALSO by simple logic, since common handguns, all have Mags of 15 or more, and ARs are THE number 1 bought rifle, some decent percentage of those would have to be weapons banned by this act.,  

 

Easy argument against, is that the superficial cosmetics that qualify a firearm as an assault anything under this law, do not make the weapons any more dangerous than any other semi-automatic NOT banned, nor any other firearm of any kind not banned, such as a lever action carbine  In fact, it is simple, with actual evidence to show that most common hunting cartridges, used in Bolt action rifles, have more energy for farther than the typical .223/5.56 or 7.62 x 39.  ALL firearms are dangerous, that is their nature, and why they are the preeminent choice for defense.

 

More to the point, Heller's reference to dangerous and unusual, is a reference to Miller.  And in Miller it puts the two types of weapons as opposite, i.e. Dangerous and unusual are not weapons in common use at the time..

 

Finally, up until Bruen, Courts that have upheld similar bans, openly admit that such bans infringe 2A rights.  Even post Heller, McDonald and Miller.  BUT, they use a 2 tier scrutiny, weighing against the 'common good' or similar bs.  But, that is expressly forbidden in Bruen, and point of fact, all appeals of similar, waiting for the SCOTUS, were sent back to the Appellate courts, to re decide via Bruen.  Basically saying they are wrong.  So, in essence, there are no precedents supporting AW Bans.

 

And Caetano found that even 200K stun guns in American's hands, is common use.  If it is in common use for lawful use, it is neither dangerous nor unusual.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 5:27 PM, cybermgk said:

More on the attck vectors of the Antis on Common Use

 

 

 

I've been enjoying his YouTube channel and learning quite a bit.  In addition to his point here that the anti-2A advocates are trying to narrow the in-common-use test to mean only dynamic shots-fired events and exclude using semi autos and standard capacity magazines as insurance or fire extinguishers are used (as on going non-dynamic protection), I have the following observation:  while the dynamic self-defense shots fired events usually involve fewer than 3 rounds fired, the 2A text prefatory clause about the necessity of a well regulated (effective) militia provides another obvious reason why semiautomatic rifles bans and magazine bans are Unconstitutional.  Here is my reasoning: how can you have an effective militia if it is denied semi automatic rifles which are obviously the minimum that would be needed to protect your community and your geographical state from tyranny (whether that tyranny arise from foreign invaders or domestic out-of-control governments or large scale societal collapse.

 

The milita clause text gives direct evidence for the conclusion that the 2A protects semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.  It is impossible the founders and creators of the Constitution meant for the people to only have hand guns and either no rifles or the least effective rifles that existed at that time and now.

 

The militia clause seems to get less attention since most of the judicial activity over the last 15 years has been about the implicit individual self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment. But an explicit purpose (one of many) is right there in the 2A text. 

 

The people would find it much more difficult to resist invasion or outright domestic tyranny if they were armed with only hand guns or less effective bolt action rifles.  And IL has now banned some bolt action rifles!

 

I think I understand why our lawyers are mostly building on the individual self defense purpose. After all, most of our cases so far have built on that and we have 4 wins and zero losses at scotus based on that.   Maybe there is less legal precedence to build on the militia clause and therefore greater risk?  Yet to me, the militia clause is a powerful, undeniable proof that semiautomatic rifles and magazines are protected under the constitution and cannot be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll make my above post simple for the stupid anti-2A people:  if AR-15 rifles are "weapons of war", as you say, then of course they are protected under the Constitutions Second Amendment.  That's because the militia, composed of the people not the government, is neccessary to the security of freedom, and the militia need arms suitable to a modern militia.

 

Governments around the world disarmed and killed over 200 million non-combatants in many countries in the last hundred years and are doing so right now in Ukraine.  Of course it could happen here. You never know how much this country could change over the next 25 or 50 years and we as a nation, as a people, should not disarm ourselves in the mistaken belief that catastrophe cannot happen here.  The Ukrainian people's lack of widespread ownership of and training in arms has reduced their ability to resist or prevent what is happening to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got to love response #4.  "We passed a blatantly unconstitutional law, full well knowing it was in direct defiance of SCOTUS opinion.  Now all the gun-rights groups are suing us.  We need a lot more time, because so many people are suing us".  

 

Wow.  How about if the courts issue a TRO against all enforcement, and then give the state all the time it needs?  The state certainly doesn't deserve more time to enforce a blatantly unconstitutional law before it's struck down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2023 at 9:34 PM, Howard Roark said:

I'll make my above post simple for the stupid anti-2A people:  if AR-15 rifles are "weapons of war", as you say, then of course they are protected under the Constitutions Second Amendment.  That's because the militia, composed of the people not the government, is neccessary to the security of freedom, and the militia need arms suitable to a modern militia.

 

Governments around the world disarmed and killed over 200 million non-combatants in many countries in the last hundred years and are doing so right now in Ukraine.  Of course it could happen here. You never know how much this country could change over the next 25 or 50 years and we as a nation, as a people, should not disarm ourselves in the mistaken belief that catastrophe cannot happen here.  The Ukrainian people's lack of widespread ownership of and training in arms has reduced their ability to resist or prevent what is happening to them.


The weapons of war argument is easy to defeat.  All guns were once weapons of war.  Double action and single action revolvers were once weapons of war.  Bolt actions were weapons of war and so were pump shotguns.  

If modern semi-automatic firearms can be banned for being weapons of war, then there is nothing to stop the State from banning other types of weapons that were once the mainstay of armies during almost every war of the last century.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2023 at 3:56 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:


The weapons of war argument is easy to defeat.  All guns were once weapons of war.  Double action and single action revolvers were once weapons of war.  Bolt actions were weapons of war and so were pump shotguns.  

If modern semi-automatic firearms can be banned for being weapons of war, then there is nothing to stop the State from banning other types of weapons that were once the mainstay of armies during almost every war of the last century.  

You are 1,000 percent correct! They could even go after muzzle loaders, bows and arrows, and even rocks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2023 at 3:56 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:


The weapons of war argument is easy to defeat.  All guns were once weapons of war.  Double action and single action revolvers were once weapons of war.  Bolt actions were weapons of war and so were pump shotguns.  

If modern semi-automatic firearms can be banned for being weapons of war, then there is nothing to stop the State from banning other types of weapons that were once the mainstay of armies during almost every war of the last century.  

 

The "weapons of war" shtick is just that....shtick. It is something that they hope catches the ear of uninformed people that think with their feelings/emotions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2023 at 3:26 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

The "weapons of war" shtick is just that....shtick. It is something that they hope catches the ear of uninformed people that think with their feelings/emotions.

 

Uhm ... those would be called, "Democrats."

 

And, "dangerous and unusual" pretty much apply to Dems and their policies, so, under their own "logic," they should be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 5:27 PM, Upholder said:

Keep in mind that the courtlistener.com docket only updates when someone with the plugin looks at the PACER docket.   And I'm sure that things don't get into and visible in PACER instantly either.

 

For district dockets, CourtListener updates every case every day, because CourtListener pulls them itself. The filing documents themselves, however, only update when someone with the browser extension buys them. Otherwise you just get a button to "Buy on PACER."

 

Aside: Appellate dockets and documents are harder, because every circuit court is a little different, so CourtListener only updates when "free" documents are published on PACER, which is usually the initial complaint, the final opinion, and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't you counter their public safety argument and throw the over penetration testing at them?

https://gripknife.com/blog/why-high-powered-556-nato223-ar15-ammo-is-safer-for-home-defense-fbi-overpenetration-testing/

 

Seems to me that bullets not exiting your house because they missed their target within a house for a self-defense situation, would actually be desirable for public safety purposes. And apparently .223/5.56 rounds are ideal here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 6:13 PM, hceuterpe said:

Idk wouldn't it be better to counter *all* of their claims and using different points, instead of just throwing Bruen at them?

 

Why entertain their means ends argument that has no validity and is moot?  Especially considering we have two Supreme Court rulings saying it's not applicable and is moot?

 

Also arguing like you suggest sort of opens the door that allowing bans on higher penetration bullets may be valid and acceptable, there is simply no reason to go there when the means ends argument is moot out of the gate.

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...