Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 5/17/2023 at 12:03 PM, ealcala31 said:

SCOTUS gives us Bruen, which is supposed to be an expansion of 2A Rights for ALL Americans, and us Illinoisans get PICA. The 7th Circuit COA already tipped their hand already, so unless SCOTUS takes this Cert, we've lost 90% of our 2A rights. For US 2A guys/gals who truly do want 2A rights, leaving the Prairie State has to be seriously considered...

 

G.T.F.O.O.I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2023 at 1:32 PM, WhiskeyRebel said:

Can you defeatist losers stop telling everyone to cut and run while ceding more and more ground to leftists? Soon there’s going to be no more places left to run to.

 

You might want to consider that it's sometimes much wiser to pick the battles you can win over lost causes.

 

This is especially true for someone whose livelihood is being threated and cut off and they need to put food on their table.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think staying and fighting if you can and are able should be done, but sometimes the smart move is to toss in the towel and regroup for a battle you can win vs punching a brick wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2023 at 4:33 PM, Flynn said:

 

You might want to consider that it's sometimes much wiser to pick the battles you can win over lost causes.

 

This is especially true for someone whose livelihood is being threated and cut off and they need to put food on their table.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think staying and fighting if you can and are able should be done, but sometimes the smart move is to toss in the towel and regroup for a battle you can win vs punching a brick wall.

 

I agree, fleeing the state is not a realistic option for most and only leaves the rest of us worse off, but I'm not going to begrudge the people who have no alternative than to carry-on the fight elsewhere.  

 

To that end, that's also why I keep reiterating that those of us who stay need to recognize where to put our efforts and what we can be accomplishing in different areas.  It's easy to throw a few dollars at a couple of these cases and cheer them on from afar.  It's also easy to fill out a couple of witness slips and come here to complain when bad bills inevitably become bad law. 

I'd wager that most folks on here are doing only the above and then sitting back and hoping the courts save us due to what appears to me to be an over-abundance of optimism.  I recognize the concerns about putting deeper strategy and coordination efforts in a public forum, and I recognize the concerns many have had about "collaborating with the enemy" in attempting to shape some of this legislation, but there has to be something more we can be doing as a community than just screaming into our own echo chamber about the things we don't like.    

 

I swear, though, there are times when it feels like gun owners on forums like this would almost prefer the status quo in Illinois to a hypothetical in which the antis suddenly see the light and give us everything we ever wanted.  I really think there are folks here more in it for the sporting aspect of the fight than to protect our rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2023 at 9:49 PM, Euler said:

On May 19, plaintiff Barnett filed for summary judgement in district court to declare parts of the Act unconstitutional for vagueness. In particular, there is no definition of what exactly "AR type" and "AK type" mean.

 

That is actually an interesting argument, what is the base line and what degree of variance and design changes would a new or different rifle design need to no longer be considered an AR or AK type under the law?  This would not really lead to the victory we desire as it still allows a ban on rifles in common use, but it shows how absurd their classificaiton of scary rifles is and how they simply cast a huge net without clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2023 at 12:27 AM, Flynn said:

 

That is actually an interesting argument, what is the base line and what degree of variance and design changes would a new or different rifle design need to no longer be considered an AR or AK type under the law?  This would not really lead to the victory we desire as it still allows a ban on rifles in common use, but it shows how absurd their classificaiton of scary rifles is and how they simply cast a huge net without clarification.

I wonder if a Troy “other” is allowed by the comrades in the Illinois congress?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2023 at 3:42 PM, Mitch said:

Seems like things have quieted down with this case. When is the next date to watch for any updates?

 

Nothing happens in the appellate court until June 29. There's a motion for summary judgment pending in the district court that could see some action before the end of June.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary judgments are based on law and undisputed facts, so discovery shouldn't play too big a role. I suppose there could be some currently unknown relevant facts which will later not be disputed when known, but that seems unlikely to me.

 

Many civil rights claims are determined by summary judgment, even when a jury trial was originally requested, because there are no relevant disputed facts.

 

Whether Barnett gets one, in whole or in part, we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2023 at 10:49 PM, Euler said:

On May 19, plaintiff Barnett filed for summary judgement in district court to declare parts of the Act unconstitutional for vagueness. In particular, there is no definition of what exactly "AR type" and "AK type" mean.

 

It was actually plaintiff Langley. Anyway ...

 

On June 2, defendants moved to stay consideration of (or possibly deny without prejudice) the summary judgment on several bases:

  1. Barnett, Harell, Langley, and FFL-IL were consolidated to consider their common claims jointly. Consideration of individually specific claims should wait until after consideration of the common claims is complete.
  2. None of the other parties have requested consideration of their individually specific claims.
  3. The consolidated Barnett case is currently under appeal at the circuit level for a preliminary injunction. Any further consideration of claims at the district level should wait until the circuit consideration of the preliminary injunction is complete.
  4. There has been no discovery. There should be discovery.

The defendants listed them as 12 reasons, not 4, but I summarized.

 

IMO reasons 1 & 2 make sense, 3 & 4 not so much. Nevertheless, the parties could/should absolutely proceed into discovery without waiting for anything to happen at the circuit level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2023 at 6:01 PM, Euler said:

Summary judgments are based on law and undisputed facts, so discovery shouldn't play too big a role. I suppose there could be some currently unknown relevant facts which will later not be disputed when known, but that seems unlikely to me.

 

Many civil rights claims are determined by summary judgment, even when a jury trial was originally requested, because there are no relevant disputed facts.

 

Whether Barnett gets one, in whole or in part, we'll see.

You always respond to a motion for S/J with a contention that discovery should be completed.  Prior to that, there are generally few or no "undisputed" facts.  Defendants deny everything in their answer.  Constitutional and/or legislation issues are more likely to get an S/J without discovery if, for example, an act is unconstitutional on its face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 10:25 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

 

My quick thoughts on the issues presented by Cook, chicago and the state in their filings

 

It almost feels like the response to all those pages should be a single page re-iterating the standard and the fact that despite all pages the government has filed none of them address the standard and are, frankly, disrespectful to the court.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 1:55 PM, davel501 said:

 

It almost feels like the response to all those pages should be a single page re-iterating the standard and the fact that despite all pages the government has filed none of them address the standard and are, frankly, disrespectful to the court.

 

Disrespectful to the tax payers as well, we are paying them to write countless hours of dribble, and they are billing the state, county, city by the hour?
Maybe they should be investigated for fraud?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 6:14 PM, mab22 said:

Disrespectful to the tax payers as well, we are paying them to write countless hours of dribble, and they are billing the state, county, city by the hour?
Maybe they should be investigated for fraud?

 

My understanding was this was all funded by Puti...err...Blootin...err...Bloomberg. Tyrannical oligarchs will tyrannize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 7:52 PM, davel501 said:

My understanding was this was all funded by Puti...err...Blootin...err...Bloomberg. Tyrannical oligarchs will tyrannize.

 

Bevis (Naperville) and Goldman (Highland Park) are pro bono, because the cities don't have big budgets. Raoul and Pritzker have the state coffers at their backs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perkins Coie is covering the costs here in IL. This was uncovered even before the ban hit the legislature. Here’s Steve Elrod (Highland Park) and the Naperville city attorney talking about the strategy (backed by Perkins Coie). Also note that they were planning legislation, without public knowledge, in which they knew it would be challenged. Pure bad faith (and they were planning on ramming this through as a pouting fest due to Bruen, as it was brewing prior to the 7/4 shooting)

D7811587-B9CC-48BB-90F1-ACC30C4EB36E.thumb.jpeg.8454b2622db7ba1010ab1748ca026b27.jpegCC89228A-BB7B-4244-842C-E0BBE1FC3132.thumb.jpeg.8f68d96ff6c8e0f8a59e32458945704a.jpegthis (FOIA) plan, that they went with, was exposed in August of last year…..

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/dirty-tricks-at-play-in-naperville-regarding-their-proposed-awb

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2023 at 1:40 PM, Euler said:

It was actually plaintiff Langley. Anyway ...

 

On June 2, defendants moved to stay consideration of (or possibly deny without prejudice) the summary judgment ...

 

On 6/5/2023 at 6:07 PM, Euler said:

On June 5, the judge ordered plaintiffs to respond to the motion by June 12.

 

... which they did on June 12.

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...