Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 2/4/2023 at 12:35 PM, davel501 said:

I had always been under the impression that Sigale's briefs were good. It was his speaking skills in court that needed work. That's the beauty of these cases being combined, we get the all-star team where everyone can play to their strengths. 

My comment was mostly about being surprised he actually objected. His brief writing is usually good, but I don’t think of him as an aggressive advocate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 5:00 PM, Tvandermyde said:

Clement is on NSSF suit, not SAF. But it is very possible Cooper and Kirk had a hand in crafting it. . . 

 

We would do ourselves a favor if we avoided the frequent attorney bashing that's been going on.  And not just "DS".

 

It's fine to have opinions.  Most of them have been expressed, though some less so than the author hoped. 

 

Let's move forward to kill this law in the ways each of us can contribute, knowing that some will contribute more than others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 6:52 PM, davel501 said:

 

It's best to say it's not open to discussion.

 

Turns out, it's actually already in the complaint:

 

40. An AR-15 rifle is an optimal firearm to rely on in a self-defense encounter. Most AR-style firearms are chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO, which is similar to .223 Remington ammunition. This is a relatively inexpensive and common cartridge that is particularly well suited for home-defense purposes because it has sufficient stopping power in the event of a home intrusion, but quickly loses velocity after passing through a target and other objects, thus decreasing the chance that an errant shot will strike an unintended target. Although most pistol rounds have less muzzle velocity than a 5.56x45mm NATO round, they have greater mass, maintain velocity after passing through walls and other objects, and pose substantially greater risks to unintended targets in, or even outside, the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 - Feb 5, 2023 -  REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brendan F. Kelly, Kwame Raoul. (Bautista, Laura) (Entered: 02/05/2023) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.21.0.pdf

 

22 - Feb 5, 2023 - MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Preliminary Injunction Response (Unopposed) by Brendan F. Kelly, Kwame Raoul. (Bautista, Laura) (Entered: 02/05/2023)

 

23 - Feb 6, 2023 - ORDER granting 18 MOTION for Extension of Time and 22 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Response. Defendants' Response to 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is due on or before March 1, 2023 and shall not exceed 50 pages. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/6/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/06/2023)

 

 

So the judge granted the delay until March 1st.   What's the odds on the over/under of another extension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Docket entry today with an order from the judge:

 

24 - Feb 13, 2023 - ORDER: Within the response to 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants shall provide illustrative examples of each and every item banned under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/13/2023. (jce)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/13/2023)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the paragraph of 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 where I would like to see illustrative examples of each and every item banned:

   (I) Any part or combination of parts designed or
    
intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, including any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2023 at 11:17 AM, Rev Jim said:

This is the paragraph of 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 where I would like to see illustrative examples of each and every item banned:

   (I) Any part or combination of parts designed or
    
intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, including any combination of parts from which an assault weapon may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

 

Sempress: Transparent Background Shh Emoji Png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 5:12 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

The AG probably has no idea regarding the extent of the order by the judge. My guess is IL just sends in some pictures of scary black rifles and calls it a day.

 

I think it's more likely that the state gets a gallery of images from Brady/Bloomberg/Giffords/etc. and submits that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 4:31 PM, Euler said:

 

I think it's more likely that the state gets a gallery of images from Brady/Bloomberg/Giffords/etc. and submits that.

 

And it's very likely the judge will then asked the state if this or that is banned and ask them why it wasn't pictured, proving beyond a doubt instantly that the law is so vague they don't even know what is banned and what isn't, some of the law could be mooted for vagueness almost instantly, if nothing else it gives us a much easier path to a permanent injunction instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defendants' Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing:

 

 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.33.0.pdf

 

 

Quote

Among other things, the agreed stipulation provides one deadline for one
consolidated response by the State Defendants to Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction
(March 2, 2023), and another deadline for the State Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to all
of Plaintiffs’ respective complaints (March 16, 2023).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The court entered an order today, with a hearing scheduled Friday, Feb 24 at 10am:

 

35 - Feb 21, 2023 - Notice and Order: The Court is in receipt of 33 Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing filed on February 17, 2023 for consideration by this Court. This matter is set for status conference/motion hearing via Zoom on Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. CST to discuss the aforementioned motion as well as consolidation of the four cases for discovery and pretrial remedies including TROs and/or other injunctive relief. Zoom invitations will be sent under separate cover. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/21/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/21/2023)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2023 at 6:02 PM, Upholder said:

The court entered an order today, with a hearing scheduled Friday, Feb 24 at 10am:

 

35 - Feb 21, 2023 - Notice and Order: The Court is in receipt of 33 Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing filed on February 17, 2023 for consideration by this Court. This matter is set for status conference/motion hearing via Zoom on Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. CST to discuss the aforementioned motion as well as consolidation of the four cases for discovery and pretrial remedies including TROs and/or other injunctive relief. Zoom invitations will be sent under separate cover. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/21/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/21/2023)

Do we know if the audio is available to the public or is it restricted to the case participants only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Court Order in Barnett v Raoul

Order said:

CALEB BARNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-209-SPM

** designated Lead Case

 

DANE HARREL, et al.,

Plaintiffs

vs.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-141-SPM

 

JEREMY W. LANGLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BRENDAN KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-192-SPM

 

FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES OF ILLINOIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JAY ROBERT “J.B.” PRITZKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-215-SPM

...

The above-referenced cases are consolidated for the purposes of discovery and injunctive relief, with Barnett, et al. v. Raoul, et al, 23-cv-209 designated as the lead case.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2023 at 7:32 PM, Euler said:

Probably because the Zoom transcript isn't the official transcript.

As long as it's not represented as one, I don't see the problem. 

In private business there can be restrictions on this because of participating members but this is all supposed to be. public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. unpinned this topic

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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