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

[springfield shooter]

On 10/12/2023 at 1:54 PM, cybermgk said:

My fear is that the 7th is stalling, so that this case can strike down the law on vagueness, not as a violation of the 2nd a la Bruen and Heller.  Then, the 7th can drop the cases arguing the violating 2A cases, as moot.  THEN the ILGA will pass a less vague, but still Unconstitutional law, and we are starting all over again..

 

Maag said in the one video, he couldn't tell from the statute if an M1 Garand is illegal?  The law is vague, but, it fails the features test, isn't listed and is not readily made into a removeable magazine.  That particular rifle is not vague imho.

 

Is the 7th Circuit panel currently considering anything beyond McGlynn's TRO?

[TargetCollector]

If I understood the arguments correctly a few months back, they took the entirety of the 2A question including the TRO straight to the 7th as a result of the back and forth with Justice Barrett.

[steveTA84]

The MSM is the enemy. Period. 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 10/13/2023 at 2:20 PM, steveTA84 said:

The MSM is the enemy. Period. 

 

Wow, that's sounds pretty absolute. Not that I disagree *BUT* if we don't believe anything MSM says where do we get our "facts" and information? On major issues I tend to read widely from a variety of sources and then fact check looking for verifiable facts, not manipulation or opinions.

 

I'd appreciate a list of media that is not tainted or biased if anyone cares to share. 

 

VooDoo

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 10/13/2023 at 12:31 PM, TargetCollector said:

If I understood the arguments correctly a few months back, they took the entirety of the 2A question including the TRO straight to the 7th as a result of the back and forth with Justice Barrett.

 

Ah, I thought McGlynn still had the case and that the 7th was just handling the TRO?  

[Euler]

There is no TRO. McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction on the common elements of the combined cases (i.e., other than the mootness argument). The 7th Circuit stayed the injunction while it reviews it.

The case itself is still with McGlynn. However, the common elements are stayed at the district level until the 7th Circuit issues a decision on the injunction.

Edited October 14, 2023 at 05:31 AM by Euler

[Grub]

On 10/14/2023 at 12:29 AM, Euler said:

There is no TRO. McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction on the common elements of the combined cases (i.e., other than the mootness argument). The 7th Circuit stayed the injunction while it reviews it.

The case itself is still with McGlynn. However, the common elements are stayed at the district level until the 7th Circuit issues a decision on the injunction.
 

Question. If McGlynn throws out the whole law, the 7th is likely going to just jump in and stay it again, correct?

 

We might have freedom week again however?

[springfield shooter]

On 10/14/2023 at 12:29 AM, Euler said:

There is no TRO. McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction on the common elements of the combined cases (i.e., other than the mootness argument). The 7th Circuit stayed the injunction while it reviews it.

The case itself is still with McGlynn. However, the common elements are stayed at the district level until the 7th Circuit issues a decision on the injunction.
 

 

Thank you.

[steveTA84]

On 10/13/2023 at 4:36 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

Wow, that's sounds pretty absolute. Not that I disagree *BUT* if we don't believe anything MSM says where do we get our "facts" and information? On major issues I tend to read widely from a variety of sources and then fact check looking for verifiable facts, not manipulation or opinions.

 

I'd appreciate a list of media that is not tainted or biased if anyone cares to share. 

 

VooDoo

Go to social media, view all sides and form own opinion

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 10/13/2023 at 4:36 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

Wow, that's sounds pretty absolute. Not that I disagree *BUT* if we don't believe anything MSM says where do we get our "facts" and information? On major issues I tend to read widely from a variety of sources and then fact check looking for verifiable facts, not manipulation or opinions.

 

I'd appreciate a list of media that is not tainted or biased if anyone cares to share. 

 

VooDoo

 

I used to go to Drudgereport which is an aggregate site.  Now that drudge has been compromised by political correctness I also view:

 

Rantingly.com

citizenfreepress.com

 

This gives me access to many different sources on the same topics.   

 

[soundguy]

On 10/13/2023 at 2:20 PM, steveTA84 said:

The MSM is the enemy. Period. 

 

On 10/14/2023 at 2:03 PM, steveTA84 said:

Go to social media, view all sides and form own opinion

 

Yep... that'll keep you well informed.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Matt B]

On 10/14/2023 at 8:10 AM, Grub said:

Question. If McGlynn throws out the whole law, the 7th is likely going to just jump in and stay it again, correct?

 

We might have freedom week again however?

Yes if the law is enjoined by McGlynn, the state will immediately appeal that to the 7th who will almost certainly stay that order.

[mab22]

On 10/15/2023 at 8:34 AM, Matt B said:

Yes if the law is enjoined by McGlynn, the state will immediately appeal that to the 7th who will almost certainly stay that order.

So we have to hope for a late in the day ruling on the eve of a holiday, courts will be closed.

[Mike]

On 10/13/2023 at 4:36 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

 

Wow, that's sounds pretty absolute. Not that I disagree *BUT* if we don't believe anything MSM says where do we get our "facts" and information? On major issues I tend to read widely from a variety of sources and then fact check looking for verifiable facts, not manipulation or opinions.

 

I'd appreciate a list of media that is not tainted or biased if anyone cares to share. 

 

VooDoo

During the cold war I was trained by the US Army to translate Russian.  As part of the training we read Russian media, in fact at one school we had an instructor who had been a newscaster on the Moscow TV station, so I got to see a lot of propaganda.  I had already seen that the International Herald Tribune (European joint venture between the New York Times and Washington Post) could report the same story as the New York Times but leave you with a completely opposite conclusion.  The same facts reported but different assumptions expected of their audiences.    People accept propaganda because not everything they say is a lie, sometime its the truth, sometimes it comes with unstated assumptions.  If I find I've been lied to I switch from accepting the source unless proven otherwise to disbelieving the source, on all matters, unless confirmed elsewhere.  For instance, if you see a news item where its obvious the reported doesn't know the first thing about firearms, doesn't that make you trust the publisher less?  What makes you think they're more knowledgeable about anything they report?

 

So at this point I don't believe anything until I've had a chance to hear/read other sources and evaluate which story makes the most sense based on my knowledge and experience.  Basically, they're all either lying or ignorant and its up to me to figure out what is most likely true.

Edited October 16, 2023 at 09:24 PM by Mike
spelling

[gtr2009]

On 10/16/2023 at 4:22 PM, Mike said:

During the cold war I was trained by the US Army to translate Russian.  As part of the training we read Russian media, in fact at one school we had an instructor who had been a newscaster on the Moscow TV station, so I got to see a lot of propaganda.  I had already seen that the International Herald Tribune (European joint venture between the New York Times and Washington Post) could report the same story as the New York Times but leave you with a completely opposite conclusion.  The same facts reported but different assumptions expected of their audiences.    People accept propaganda because not everything they say is a lie, sometime its the truth, sometimes it comes with unstated assumptions.  If I find I've been lied to I switch from accepting the source unless proven otherwise to disbelieving the source, on all matters, unless confirmed elsewhere.  For instance, if you see a news item where its obvious the reported doesn't know the first thing about firearms, doesn't that make you trust the publisher less?  What makes you think they're more knowledgeable about anything they report?

 

So at this point I don't believe anything until I've had a chance to hear/read other sources and evaluate which story makes the most sense based on my knowledge and experience.  Basically, they're all either lying or ignorant and its up to me to figure out what is most likely true.

I'm with Mike on this one.  (highlighted the money shot)  My rule is: For major "narrative" stories whatever the MSM has reported is reliably the one thing you can be sure did not happen, or did not happen exactly the way they said, or the because is wrong, or the consequences are misleading, etc.  

Obviously, "high school won football game" doesn't apply here.

[yurimodin]

On 10/14/2023 at 6:52 PM, soundguy said:

 

 

Yep... that'll keep you well informed.

 

Cheers,

Tim

They got caught 30 years ago pulling this crap.......MSM is 97% propaganda 

 

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 10/16/2023 at 4:22 PM, Mike said:

During the cold war I was trained by the US Army to translate Russian.  As part of the training we read Russian media, in fact at one school we had an instructor who had been a newscaster on the Moscow TV station, so I got to see a lot of propaganda.  I had already seen that the International Herald Tribune (European joint venture between the New York Times and Washington Post) could report the same story as the New York Times but leave you with a completely opposite conclusion.  The same facts reported but different assumptions expected of their audiences.    People accept propaganda because not everything they say is a lie, sometime its the truth, sometimes it comes with unstated assumptions.  If I find I've been lied to I switch from accepting the source unless proven otherwise to disbelieving the source, on all matters, unless confirmed elsewhere.  For instance, if you see a news item where its obvious the reported doesn't know the first thing about firearms, doesn't that make you trust the publisher less?  What makes you think they're more knowledgeable about anything they report?

 

So at this point I don't believe anything until I've had a chance to hear/read other sources and evaluate which story makes the most sense based on my knowledge and experience.  Basically, they're all either lying or ignorant and its up to me to figure out what is most likely true.

Wow I somewhat understand quite a few languages, kind of have to but Russian is just ... up.    

I guess some of the clanging garbage can lids I don't understand either. 

[steveTA84]

From one of the attorneys on the case 

 

https://x.com/moroskostas/status/1717299826700976545?s=46&t=ZJIYNr-TwO9eZdQE_UykAg

 

ATTENTION ILLINOIS RESIDENTS: We've heard your concerns about the looming registration deadline. The cavalry is coming. We will be filing a motion for leave to amend our complaint momentarily. 

Despite there being no 7th Circuit ruling yet, and despite the fact that regardless of who prevails there, the ruling will be appealed (either to SCOTUS, or en banc), Illinois insists on moving forward with its January 1st registration deadline. Thus, we are forced to amend our complaint to challenge registration specifically. 

We argue that registration is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment. There is no historical tradition of registering common firearms. 

This specific registration requirement is also unconstitutional on due process grounds because it is vague for a myriad of reasons the amended complaint discusses. Further, there is insufficient notice. The law passed at the beginning of the year, but we only got the Illinois State Police rules implementing registration in mid-September. Those rules failed to clarify the vagueness issues in the underlying law. 

Many people in Illinois probably don't know about the registration requirement, or if they are aware of it, they may not know that what must be registered isn't limited to complete firearms. The law applies to various parts, and even individual .50 BMG cartridges. This confusion may be part of the reason exceedingly few people have registered thus far, in addition to others not complying on principle. 

If the court grants leave to amend, and we expect it will, we will bring a new motion for preliminary injunction to Judge McGlynn. Our hope is to have the Court either declare registration unconstitutional and enjoin it, or to at least order the deadline delayed for now until litigation on the core ban is complete.

 

 

amended complaint 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PES1BoJcTXaGhKJjYEUs46aUhdJI9CV6/view

[Euler]

Hmm, registration stayed pending appeal sounds kind of like an eye-poke to make the 7th Circuit issue its ruling sooner rather than later.

Law not in effect during challenge, anti-2A says: "ZOMG we need a ruling NAO."

Law in effect during challenge, anti-2A says: "The court must exercise due caution during deliberation to reach a reasonable decision."

[mab22]

On 10/25/2023 at 5:58 PM, steveTA84 said:

From one of the attorneys on the case 

 

https://x.com/moroskostas/status/1717299826700976545?s=46&t=ZJIYNr-TwO9eZdQE_UykAg

 

ATTENTION ILLINOIS RESIDENTS: We've heard your concerns about the looming registration deadline. The cavalry is coming. We will be filing a motion for leave to amend our complaint momentarily. 

Despite there being no 7th Circuit ruling yet, and despite the fact that regardless of who prevails there, the ruling will be appealed (either to SCOTUS, or en banc), Illinois insists on moving forward with its January 1st registration deadline. Thus, we are forced to amend our complaint to challenge registration specifically. 

We argue that registration is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment. There is no historical tradition of registering common firearms. 

This specific registration requirement is also unconstitutional on due process grounds because it is vague for a myriad of reasons the amended complaint discusses. Further, there is insufficient notice. The law passed at the beginning of the year, but we only got the Illinois State Police rules implementing registration in mid-September. Those rules failed to clarify the vagueness issues in the underlying law. 

Many people in Illinois probably don't know about the registration requirement, or if they are aware of it, they may not know that what must be registered isn't limited to complete firearms. The law applies to various parts, and even individual .50 BMG cartridges. This confusion may be part of the reason exceedingly few people have registered thus far, in addition to others not complying on principle. 

If the court grants leave to amend, and we expect it will, we will bring a new motion for preliminary injunction to Judge McGlynn. Our hope is to have the Court either declare registration unconstitutional and enjoin it, or to at least order the deadline delayed for now until litigation on the core ban is complete.

 

 

amended complaint 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PES1BoJcTXaGhKJjYEUs46aUhdJI9CV6/view

 

So what prevents the courts, or even the appellate court stepping in again,  from saying, okay "no registration", but the BAN on everything still holds so you can't BUY, or OWN anything on the list of items we prohibit?
Same with banning of certain ammunition, as opposed to just registration?

 

[yurimodin]

On 10/25/2023 at 7:03 PM, Euler said:

Hmm, registration stayed pending appeal sounds kind of like an eye-poke to make the 7th Circuit issue its ruling sooner rather than later.

Law not in effect during challenge, anti-2A says: "ZOMG we need a ruling NAO."

Law in effect during challenge, anti-2A says: "The court must exercise due caution during deliberation to reach a reasonable decision."

 

On 10/27/2023 at 11:15 AM, mab22 said:

 

So what prevents the courts, or even the appellate court stepping in again,  from saying, okay "no registration", but the BAN on everything still holds so you can't BUY, or OWN anything on the list of items we prohibit?
Same with banning of certain ammunition, as opposed to just registration?

 

 

JMHO but delay helps the antis and SCOTUS has been way too patient with the lower courts IMO........I say we get that bandaid ripped off one way or the other and be done with it.

[ragsbo]

On 10/27/2023 at 12:22 PM, yurimodin said:

 

 

JMHO but delay helps the antis and SCOTUS has been way too patient with the lower courts IMO........I say we get that bandaid ripped off one way or the other and be done with it.

I agree, well passed time that the SCOTUS starts slapping the lower courts up side the head for disregarding their rulings. The lower courts and states are basically giving the SCOTUS the single digit indicator and the SCOTUS just takes it

[Euler]

On October 27, 2023 at 11:15 AM CDT, mab22 said:→

... okay "no registration", but the BAN on everything still holds so you can't BUY, or OWN anything on the list of items we prohibit?
...

Grandfathering is still in the law. The ban "only" affects transfers.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Isn't forcing folks to register items we know are banned depriving us of our 5th amendment rights? I'm being forced to incriminate myself by telling what I have and where it is if I register.....and if I don't I'm a felon for not turning myself in!

 

VooDoo

[davel501]

On 10/27/2023 at 2:40 PM, Euler said:

Grandfathering is still in the law. The ban "only" affects transfers.

 

It also blocks repairs and replacing wear items like magazines. 

[Euler]

On October 27, 2023 at 07:05 PMCDT, davel501 said:→

It also blocks repairs and replacing wear items like magazines.

mab22's point was that, if registration were enjoined, all "banned" firearms would have to be dispossessed after January 1. They don't. "Banned" firearms are only banned for (in-state) transfers, not possession.

Edited October 28, 2023 at 12:48 AM by Euler

[mab22]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:47 PM, Euler said:

mab22's point was that, if registration were enjoined, all "banned" firearms would have to be dispossessed after January 1. They don't. "Banned" firearms are only banned for (in-state) transfers, not possession.
 

95%
I was thinking more of the registration enjoined, I wasn't thinking disposed of, didn't think about grandfathered, just cant buy new stuff.

So that could happen and still be a better position, but not that great of one.

 

 

[davel501]

On 10/27/2023 at 8:39 PM, mab22 said:

95%
I was thinking more of the registration enjoined, I wasn't thinking disposed of, didn't think about grandfathered, just cant buy new stuff.

So that could happen and still be a better position, but not that great of one.

 

 

 

Yeah, that can't buy is hurting me right now. 

[JTHunter]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:34 PM, ragsbo said:

I agree, well passed time that the SCOTUS starts slapping the lower courts up side the head for disregarding their rulings. The lower courts and states are basically giving the SCOTUS the single digit indicator and the SCOTUS just takes it

 

IMO. the reason the SC has started "slapping down" some of these bogus laws is that Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have the "will" to do what needs to be done. 

[Flynn]

On 10/27/2023 at 11:02 PM, JTHunter said:

 

IMO. the reason the SC has started "slapping down" some of these bogus laws is that Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have the "will" to do what needs to be done. 

 

I beg to differ, the SCOTUS is doing what the SCOTUS does, they are giving the inferior courts a chance to get it right, when they fail to do that and the cases are complete and fully litigated I believe we will see the smack downs start to come, I also fully expect the SCOTUS to use Rahimi as one last white glove smack for the inferior courts to take notice before the gloves come off...  Sadly as much as it annoys many, this is how the SCOTUS operates...