Jump to content

Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban

Upholder

By Upholder
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted

NSSF has filed a lawsuit in Federal court, in the Southern District of Illinois with named plaintffs:

 

CALEB BARNETT, BRIAN NORMAN,
HOOD’S GUNS & MORE, PRO GUN
AND INDOOR RANGE, and NATIONAL
SPORTS SHOOTING FOUNDATION,
INC.

 

docket

 

complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.1.0.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 1/24/2023 at 8:21 PM, steveTA84 said:

Just so everyone knows who’s involved in this lawsuit (I would not want to be Pritzker and Raoul right now LOL)

 

It makes sense as Illlinois is dumb enough to drive this case all the way up the ladder vs admit they were wrong, just like Illinois reinforced Heller with McDonald, Illinois is now positioned to reinforced Bruen on an epic level across many aspects of exercising the 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Molly B. changed the title to Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban
  • Molly B. pinned this topic
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/24/2023 at 9:29 PM, Euler said:

 

Illinois flinched on Moore v Madigan rather than take it to SCOTUS.

 

I believe that only happened because Illinois was the only state left to allow concealed carry by that time, the writing on the wall was not only clear but being blasted out of loud speakers across the country in every court.  Daddy Madigan as much as we hate him isn't/wasn't a dumb man, he knew the gig was up did what was necessary to save his families face.

 

The same could theoretically happen here, but I'm betting it's going to be California, New York or Illinois that takes this to the Supreme Court, and the blind arrogance of J.B. right now to appeal to his voter base on a potential future presidential run can't be ignored.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted
On 1/24/2023 at 11:18 PM, Flynn said:

 

I believe that only happened because Illinois was the only state left to allow concealed carry by that time, the writing on the wall was not only clear but being blasted out of loud speakers across the country in every court.  Daddy Madigan as much as we hate him isn't/wasn't a dumb man, he knew the gig was up did what was necessary to save his families face.

 

The same could theoretically happen here, but I'm betting it's going to be California, New York or Illinois that takes this to the Supreme Court, and the blind arrogance of J.B. right now to appeal to his voter base on a potential future presidential run can't be ignored.

"and the blind arrogance of J.B. right now to appeal to his voter base on a potential future presidential run can't be ignored." Yeppity yep

 

Yep on the rest as well.

 

I hope it IS Illinois 's stupid over reach that brings them all down.  That is if it i expedient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
martho Member

martho

Posted
Posted

I believe that only happened because Illinois was the only state left to allow concealed carry by that time, the writing on the wall was not only clear but being blasted out of loud speakers across the country in every court.  Daddy Madigan as much as we hate him isn't/wasn't a dumb man, he knew the gig was up did what was necessary to save his families face.

 

That didn't stop Durbin from going on TV and saying, "Just because 49 other states have it, doesn't make IL wrong."  The entrenched mindset of these 4,000 term politicians always on display.  Assault weapons ban or bust     relection or bust is more like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CplHunter Member

CplHunter

Posted
Posted
On 1/26/2023 at 3:35 PM, MrTriple said:

Why is he recusing from all of these?

 

U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert will no longer preside over cases involving state government due to his position as trustee at Southern Illinois University.

 

https://madisonrecord.com/stories/510793356-gilbert-reassigned-from-133-cases-due-to-position-as-siu-trustee

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTriple Member

MrTriple

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/26/2023 at 3:52 PM, CplHunter said:

 

U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert will no longer preside over cases involving state government due to his position as trustee at Southern Illinois University.

 

https://madisonrecord.com/stories/510793356-gilbert-reassigned-from-133-cases-due-to-position-as-siu-trustee

Unfortunate, certainly, but perhaps it makes sense.

 

As for Harrel, are there any conflicts we need to be aware of?

 

Also, how are cases assigned to judges? I'm not sure if anyone has explained the process but it would be helpful to understand how it works.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cbunt32 Member

cbunt32

Posted
Posted
On 1/27/2023 at 7:57 AM, steveTA84 said:

I know we all know that’ll be denied....

For the sake of the discussion let’s assume that to be true. SCOTUS declined to weigh in on New York case because the appeals court had expedited it. Here we have a standard tactic of delaying these lawsuits and courts that allow it to happen. I wonder if SCOTUS would see this case differently 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted
On 1/27/2023 at 8:15 AM, cbunt32 said:

For the sake of the discussion let’s assume that to be true. SCOTUS declined to weigh in on New York case because the appeals court had expedited it. Here we have a standard tactic of delaying these lawsuits and courts that allow it to happen. I wonder if SCOTUS would see this case differently 

I do believe the Democrats are forcing the hand of SCOTUS. After Bruen they all went stupid with this stuff. I guess reading comprehension and intelligence is lacking amongst them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTriple Member

MrTriple

Posted
Posted
On 1/27/2023 at 8:15 AM, cbunt32 said:

For the sake of the discussion let’s assume that to be true. SCOTUS declined to weigh in on New York case because the appeals court had expedited it. Here we have a standard tactic of delaying these lawsuits and courts that allow it to happen. I wonder if SCOTUS would see this case differently

But we also have to look at the concurrence on the denial: This was about procedure and not merits (good for us) and SCOTUS made it clear that the courts were to "move with all due haste" or something along those lines. This last part is important, since it seems that the Second Circuit fast-tracked the case for a hearing on March 20th, less than two months from when SCOTUS declined to get involved. While I can't read minds, it's possible the Second Circuit's decision to fast-track could've been influenced by that concurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hap Member

Hap

Posted
Posted
On 1/27/2023 at 1:33 PM, MrTriple said:

But we also have to look at the concurrence on the denial: This was about procedure and not merits (good for us) and SCOTUS made it clear that the courts were to "move with all due haste" or something along those lines. This last part is important, since it seems that the Second Circuit fast-tracked the case for a hearing on March 20th, less than two months from when SCOTUS declined to get involved. While I can't read minds, it's possible the Second Circuit's decision to fast-track could've been influenced by that concurrence.

The only other possibility I can come up with is that the Second Circuit's original denial was written so hastily because they knew SCOTUS would throw in back in their faces and so they didn't want to waste any time writing it up. Same thing in the end, but it allows the Second Circuit to at least pretend to have put up a little resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Docket entry contains an order from the judge:

 

27 - Feb 13, 2023 - ORDER: Within the response to 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants shall provide illustrative examples of each and every item banned under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9, whether firearm and/or ammunition. 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
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 2/13/2023 at 10:49 AM, Upholder said:

Docket entry contains an order from the judge:

 

27 - Feb 13, 2023 - ORDER: Within the response to 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants shall provide illustrative examples of each and every item banned under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9, whether firearm and/or ammunition. 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)

 

That is an odd order from a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/13/2023 at 12:53 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Yeah in another thread I asked about that considering that Illinois banned virtually every semi-auto rifle by name or feature.  I'd think that would be an almost impossible task. 

OR, is it the judge just wants photos of the scary guns that were listed by name? Which I would consider a bad sign and an indication that the judge doesn't understand how wide ranging the ban actually is.  I hope the plaintiffs can add to the list. 

 

It's just not the firearms themselves, they banded all the parts/accessories as well, parts/accessories that are not specified or detailed in the law beyond possibly being part of something they claim to be banned, under the plain text (that has copious amounts of vagueness) they literally banned things like roll pins, screws, springs, nuts, bolts, rivets and the list could go on!  One might even claim they banned black paint, you know because if you paint a rifle black it's an assualt weapon 😂

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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