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

[Sigma]

Can a person store their firearms in state and be "not in possesion" or does he have to take it out of state

[Lou]

On 4/9/2023 at 10:02 PM, JTHunter said:

I have posted Todd's videos in three other forums I frequent.  It has definitely raised the ire of some in those forums, both for the stupidity of the ILGA and the vague broadness of the language in the law.

A part of me thinks that it is not the stupidity of the ILGA writing the laws in such a vague manner.  I think it is on purpose to get things interpreted by the ISP in a way that they could not get passed if it were spelled out in the bill. 

[Euler]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:51 AM, Sigma said:

Can a person store their firearms in state and be "not in possesion" or does he have to take it out of state

 

As long as you know where they are and have access to them, you possess them. The state's jurisdiction extends to its boundaries. If you want your firearms to escape Illinois law, they need to be outside Illinois.

[Molly B.]

[Upholder]

I am stuck all tomorrow afternoon in meetings.  Would someone please summarize as the proceedings um, proceed?  😃

[Euler]

The defendants have filed the denial of a federal preliminary injunction in the Delaware case Delaware State Sportsmen's Association v Delaware (docket) as an advisory authority in this case.

 

To grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have to show that:

1. it is possible for the case to succeed on its merits;
2. the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction;
3. the "balance of equities" favors the plaintiff; and
4. an injunction serves the public interest.

 

The judge in the Delaware case asserted:

1. that "assault weapons" are not used commonly for self-defense, but are used commonly for mass shootings, therefore they are not covered by the Second Amendment, and the case is not likely to succeed; and
2. that suspension of Second Amendment civil liberties for limited periods does not cause irreparable harm; furthermore the Second Amendment does not protect a right to sell firearms.

 

Since the first two conditions are recognized as the most important ones, and because (the judge ruled) the plaintiffs had not satisfied them, he denied the injunction.

 

Edited April 12, 2023 at 02:02 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:55 PM, Upholder said:

I am stuck all tomorrow afternoon in meetings.  Would someone please summarize as the proceedings um, proceed?

 

I'll probably listen and summarize. Oral arguments tend to be short, so there isn't a need to post real-time updates.

[springfield shooter]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:00 PM, Euler said:

The defendants have filed the denial of a federal preliminary injunction in the Delaware case Delaware State Sportsmen's Association v Delaware (docket) as an advisory authority in this case.

 

To grant a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs have to show that:

1. it is possible for the case to succeed on its merits;
2. the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction;
3. the "balance of equities" favors the plaintiff; and
4. an injunction serves the public interest.

 

The judge in the Delaware case asserted:

1. that "assault weapons" are not used commonly for self-defense, but are used commonly for mass shootings, therefore they are not covered by the Second Amendment, and the case is not likely to succeed; and
2. that suspension of Second Amendment civil liberties for limited periods does not cause irreparable harm; furthermore the Second Amendment does not protect a right to sell firearms.

 

Since the first two conditions are recognized as the most important ones, and because (the judge ruled) the plaintiffs had not satisfied them, he denied the injunction.

 

 

The judge in the above case is an Obama appointee. 

[THE KING]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:25 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

The judge in the above case is an Obama appointee. 

And an idiot.  

[JTHunter]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:38 AM, Lou said:

A part of me thinks that it is not the stupidity of the ILGA writing the laws in such a vague manner.  I think it is on purpose to get things interpreted by the ISP in a way that they could not get passed if it were spelled out in the bill. 

 

Oh, I agree with you.  I just didn't want to put it out there like that.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

I assume nobody else has audio beyond the elevator music?

[Black Flag]

On 4/11/2023 at 8:09 PM, Molly B. said:

Nothing going on yet

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Conferenced ended! Nothing happened. I rejoined. 

Edited April 12, 2023 at 06:12 PM by AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

It looks like it was changed to 1:30 on the calendar.

[mauserme]

I just joined the call and got a message saying the host has not yet arrived.

 

[cbunt32]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:49 PM, mauserme said:

I just joined the call and got a message saying the host has not yet arrived.

 

Greg Bishop is live tweeting it. Not sure why we can't listen in

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

He is at the court house.

 

[JamesW]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:51 PM, cbunt32 said:

Greg Bishop is live tweeting it. Not sure why we can't listen in

 

 

Link?

 

[Black Flag]

Waste of an hour

[bmyers]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:57 PM, Black Flag said:

Waste of an hour

Why? What happened?

[mauserme]

I was just told the conference ended.

 

[Euler]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:51 PM, cbunt32 said:

... Not sure why we can't listen in

 

Maybe McGlynn is one of those judges who doesn't like spectators.

 

On 4/12/2023 at 2:58 PM, mauserme said:

I was just told the conference ended.

 

It does that every few minutes.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:58 PM, mauserme said:

I was just told the conference ended.

 

I signed in 5 to 1 and got "conference ended" message at least 3 times. I have not called back as the hearing has begun and is obvious it is not being broadcast. I wonder if it is not being broadcast because biden ended the covid restrictions. 

[Black Flag]

On 4/12/2023 at 1:58 PM, bmyers said:

Why? What happened?

Nothing happened, on the conf line.  Nothing happened for an hour.

Therefore it was a wasted hour.

 

[steveTA84]

If what is being reported play by play is accurate, I’m not to impressed with Murphy (plaintiff lawyer), as she seems to be making the case for the antis a bit. Argued “dangerous OR unusual” and made the case that large firearms (like .50’s?) are not in common use

Edited April 12, 2023 at 07:06 PM by steveTA84

[bmyers]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:02 PM, Black Flag said:

Nothing happened, on the conf line.  Nothing happened for an hour.

Therefore it was a wasted hour.

 

Oh okay, I thought something happened in the case, but right now it is everyone dealing with the connection issues.

 

Thanks for the clarification. 

Edited April 12, 2023 at 07:05 PM by bmyers

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

Bishop on Air live tweets...

 

 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:04 PM, steveTA84 said:

If what is being reported play by play is accurate, I’m not to impressed with Murphy (plaintiff lawyer), as she seems to be making the case for the antis a bit  

 

I agree but will reserve judgement until I see a transcript or video. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:04 PM, steveTA84 said:

If what is being reported play by play is accurate, I’m not to impressed with Murphy (plaintiff lawyer), as she seems to be making the case for the antis a bit  

 

 

Murphy was getting dragged into a this or that argument.    .50 cal, grenade launchers, machine guns.   

 

Judging by the questions being asked by the judge, it looks to me like the judge is looking for an opening to interest balance.  

[MRE]

On 4/12/2023 at 2:14 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Murphy was getting dragged into a this or that argument.    .50 cal, grenade launchers, machine guns.   

 

Judging by the questions being asked by the judge, it looks to me like the judge is looking for an opening to interest balance.  

I would caution against reading too much into questions a judge asks at hearing. I say this because many judges ask questions to play devils advocate, even of arguments they end up agreeing with. 
 

Some treat it as almost an academic exercise to test the knowledge of counsel and the veracity of their beliefs, similar to a law school class.

Edited April 12, 2023 at 07:21 PM by MRE