Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 5/10/2023 at 1:02 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'll argue these cases were politics from the start.  To many people on our side expect the game to be played fairly.  The Dems have tried all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways. They tried to judge shop twice now?  2A friendly Judge Gilbert has to recuse because he sits as a Trustee for a state university. Yet 2 state supreme court judges don't even consider it, even after blatant conflicts, and they ignore the state court rules for judges.   And now the state gets to jump the line and get a stay from the circuit court and then the state draws an overtly hostile 2A judge.   

 

I look at Maag's brief as someone on our side making some noise, waving their arms around, and proclaiming HEY, we're being screwed over here!  

Let's fix that one sentence.

The Dems have tried used all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 1:02 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'll argue these cases were politics from the start.  To many people on our side expect the game to be played fairly.  The Dems have tried all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways. They tried to judge shop twice now?  2A friendly Judge Gilbert has to recuse because he sits as a Trustee for a state university. Yet 2 state supreme court judges don't even consider it, even after blatant conflicts, and they ignore the state court rules for judges.   And now the state gets to jump the line and get a stay from the circuit court and then the state draws an overtly hostile 2A judge.   

 

I look at Maag's brief as someone on our side making some noise, waving their arms around, and proclaiming HEY, we're being screwed over here!  

💯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2023 at 5:26 PM, MRE said:


Pritzker and ISP are building an unnecessary tinder box here.

 

Oh, it's necessary. Pritzker and the appointed hoplophobes in ISP admin are hoping for an untoward response, so they can clutch their pearls and scream "WVILGUN OWNERS! TOLD U SO!" and push even more restrictions.

Edited by Tango7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the racist, elitist aspect of Bob Morgan's Gun and Magazine Bans. How dare gang violence or whack job violence strike Highland Park and the North Shore's League of Women Voters? Those communities are supposed to be Gun Free Zone enclaves (a racist and elitist word of exclusion). Try using that word in a real estate listing and you'll be censured.  Point being, gang violence in the hood is of no consequence. Just don't let it be known that mental illness occurs in white suburbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 5:54 PM, RECarry said:

Consider the racist, elitist aspect of Bob Morgan's Gun and Magazine Bans. How dare gang violence or whack job violence strike Highland Park and the North Shore's League of Women Voters? Those communities are supposed to be Gun Free Zone enclaves (a racist and elitist word of exclusion). Try using that word in a real estate listing and you'll be censured.  Point being, gang violence in the hood is of no consequence. Just don't let it be known that mental illness occurs in white suburbs.

Right?  I’ve thought that from the beginning. 50+ homicides in a summer weekend?  As long as it’s in black neighborhoods nobody cares. One shooting in Highland Park and there’s a statewide ban?

 

Tell me more about my implicit bias. Please. Because that sounds downright racist to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 5:04 PM, Mitch said:

One shooting in Highland Park and there’s a statewide ban?

 

 

The north shore is where the huge campaign donor money comes from.  The suburban karens got scared and threatened to stop funding campaigns. 

 

Even then.. they didn't have the votes for a period of time.  Enforcement for the gang neighborhoods got removed. Carve-outs written in. 

 

  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 5:39 PM, Monty80 said:

Wasn't there a carve out in this pile of dung for FFLs?

 

IIRC, they can sell stuff to out of state customers and MIL/LEO.   BUT.. we have FFL members here who have stated they were informed they can't replenish their inventory of banned guns. They can only sell what they have in current inventory and then that is it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 5:59 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

IIRC, they can sell stuff to out of state customers and MIL/LEO.   BUT.. we have FFL members here who have stated they were informed they can't replenish their inventory of banned guns. They can only sell what they have in current inventory and then that is it. 

 

 

 

I'm a new FFL and tried to order some for a few out of state customers and got told to pound sand. I guess I was wrong. Talk about garbage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 6:54 AM, lilguy said:

So where are we now?

 

With Barnett, CA7 issued an emergency stay on a preliminary injunction. CA7 could lift the stay almost immediately, although it could also make the stay on the preliminary injunction permanent. The case itself is still in the sourthern district, so McGlynn could issue a permanent injunction, although CA7 could step on that, too.

 

On 5/10/2023 at 12:31 PM, imagineallthekarma said:

Who rules on the motion to stay in the 7th circuit? Is it Easterbrook, or a 3 judge panel? If it’s the panel when do we know the composition?

 

Solitary judges can rule on motions. That's how Barrett alone is hearing the Bevis appeal on a preliminary injunction at the Supreme Court. Easterbrook probably will rule on his own stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 8:41 PM, Euler said:

 

With Barnett, CA7 issued an emergency stay on a preliminary injunction. CA7 could lift the stay almost immediately, although it could also make the stay on the preliminary injunction permanent. The case itself is still in the sourthern district, so McGlynn could issue a permanent injunction, although CA7 could step on that, too.

 

 

Solitary judges can rule on motions. That's how Barrett alone is hearing the Bevis appeal on a preliminary injunction at the Supreme Court. Easterbrook probably will rule on his own stay.

 

Isn't the court on recess until 5/17? My understanding was Easterbrook was the "on-call" judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 9:57 PM, davel501 said:

Isn't the court on recess until 5/17? My understanding was Easterbrook was the "on-call" judge.

 

According to their calendar, week 4 of the 2023 session ends April 31. Week 5 starts May 15. That just means they're not hearing arguments. It's not like they all go fishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2023 at 9:24 PM, Euler said:

 

According to their calendar, week 4 of the 2023 session ends April 31. Week 5 starts May 15. That just means they're not hearing arguments. It's not like they all go fishing.

 

I think it was one of Todd's videos that made it sound like they were away. Not sure if that means working from home or fishing but it's surprising we haven't heard from anyone else given Easterbrook's behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appellate courts hear arguments before 3 judge panels usually the first week or two of the month I believe.  The Supreme Court works the same way except the oral arguments are before the entire court on scheduled oral argument days.  The Supreme Court takes a couple of months off during the summer but the court staff continues working and processing appeals and emergency motions will come up there from time to time.  The rest of the time during the month in other appellate courts is spent working on writing decisions.  They are still there working, just no oral arguments during the rest of the month.

Edited by gunuser17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2023 at 1:37 PM, yurimodin said:

yup courts will move at lighting speed to screw us and then take decades to get around to helping.

We're overreacting a little bit.

 

Take those carry cases out of New York. That hearing by the Second Circuit was scheduled within 45 days, which is shockingly fast for the federal courts. We got the initial injunction from McGlynn within months of the AWB passing. We may get word from SCOTUS by Monday morning about the appeal of the injunction. And once the Circuit Court has a chance to address Easterbrook's stay, there's the possibility of merits arguments and even a potential ruling from the district courts before the end of summer, particularly if McGlynn is allowed to get Barnett moving again (he likely wants merits arguments scheduled ASAP).

 

And then there's the numerous 18-20 handgun ban cases, the challenges to various aspects of 922, etc., to say nothing of Bianchi and the various cases before Benitez.

 

Things seem to be moving far faster than we realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2023 at 1:50 PM, yurimodin said:

riiiiiiiiight.......I'm not holding my breath. I really would like to see the stay stayed so we don't have to worry about this registration BS.

The most likely outcome (statistically) is that SCOTUS refuses to get involved this early in the life of the case (as both Todd and Mark Smith have noted) with Alito issuing a statement ala New York saying, "quit playing games, we're watching you".

 

I get everybody's frustration, but right now the focus needs to be on getting a hearing scheduled on the merits. That can't happen until this injunction mess is settled and the district courts get back to work.

 

Also remember that the Seventh Circuit has an opportunity to review Easterbrook's stay, and any warning from SCOTUS could very well influence their thinking, especially if Alito/Thomas explicitly condemn Friedman as bad law. So that's another thing to consider.

 

And a permanent injunction from, say, McGlynn would also prove incredibly helpful, even if that gets stayed on appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried posting a link, let me try again.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure how to read this order from the court. Are they consolidating for the purpose of merits arguments?

 

Regardless, a part of me wonders if this is actually a good thing. At the very least (assuming the June hearing is on the merits) then that means a faster resolution than what we'd be getting under normal circumstances.

 

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2023 at 2:30 PM, John Q Public said:

I think a major part of the frustration is that they will just write another crap law even if we win these.

At this point, making us go through the process is the punishment they (I.e. anti gunners, all who vote to keep the D party in power, etc) can inflict on us.  They don’t care about legal.

 

We may be entering a full generation of “the process is the punishment” mode given the speed and capacity of the legal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2023 at 2:51 PM, Yeti said:

At this point, making us go through the process is the punishment they (I.e. anti gunners, all who vote to keep the D party in power, etc) can inflict on us.  They don’t care about legal.

 

We may be entering a full generation of “the process is the punishment” mode given the speed and capacity of the legal system.

Let's be honest: Bruen spells the end of gun control in America. They're gonna be as vindictive and punitive as they can while their movement fades away. This isn't unexpected if we're being truly honest with ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2023 at 2:50 PM, steveTA84 said:

The panel is awful. Gonna be 2-1 against rights

 

Easterbrook is p*****. He doesn't want his precious Friedman ruling overturned, and will do whatever he has to to save it.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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