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

[mab22]

On 2/24/2024 at 3:30 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

And the correct argument for our lawyers  is to declare it Easterbrook's interest balancing. Then use your example that any item can be used for unlawful purposes. 

 

Then when they get to the military test. Just about every action (lever, bolt, revolver, trap door, musket, semi-auto, auto) have been used by the military at one time. So Easterbrook's military test would allow a ban on virtually every type of gun which is in violation of Heller's common use. 

I particularly like this image and description. By EasterCrook's definition, Remington 1100's should be declared military use. They have a picture of it here on a battle ship, as is description states. That sure don't look like a cruise ship. 

Taken from this wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_1100#Users

 

Wingmaster 12-gauge shotgun, two Remington 1100 12-gauge shotguns, boxes of shells and clay targets are laid out on the fantail of the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) in preparation for skeet shooting practice.

 

Then there is this article, gotta NIX pump shotguns now!

https://www.twz.com/8188/check-out-the-marine-corps-fearsome-looking-upgraded-shotguns

Quote

But while the MEK will certainly make the Mossbergs safer and handier, don’t expect to see Marines necessarily using them any more often than they are now. The weapons have proven themselves useful in very select situations, such as close-range security details or breaking down doors. The new upgrades are almost entirely focused on improving the gun’s handling in the latter situation.

 

Would close-range be like .... "In the home"... ?

[skinnyb82]

On 2/24/2024 at 8:45 PM, mab22 said:

I particularly like this image and description. By EasterCrook's definition, Remington 1100's should be declared military use. They have a picture of it here on a battle ship, as is description states. That sure don't look like a cruise ship.

 

Would close-range be like .... "In the home"... ?

Or the Remington 870, Mossberg 500 variants, Benelli M4, all military variants, all dual use military and civilian. This is great. McGlynn is setting up CA7 to fail under its own legal reasoning with this one...if it doesn't get taken up by SCOTUS first. He practically spells it out in his order. 

[ragsbo]

On 2/24/2024 at 8:45 PM, mab22 said:

I particularly like this image and description. By EasterCrook's definition, Remington 1100's should be declared military use. They have a picture of it here on a battle ship, as is description states. That sure don't look like a cruise ship. 

Taken from this wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_1100#Users

 

Wingmaster 12-gauge shotgun, two Remington 1100 12-gauge shotguns, boxes of shells and clay targets are laid out on the fantail of the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) in preparation for skeet shooting practice.

 

Then there is this article, gotta NIX pump shotguns now!

https://www.twz.com/8188/check-out-the-marine-corps-fearsome-looking-upgraded-shotguns

 

Would close-range be like .... "In the home"... ?

They used Remington 870s with a metal folding stocks for guard duty in the Marines back around 1980. I had to "teach" a private how to "unload" one when he "unauthorized " racked one into the chamber BEFORE he challenged me and a couple others. We were where we were suppose to be and he was not. They issued him the shotgun , showed him how to rack one into chamber (carried it condition 3) but no other training.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Yep. The mossberg 590 is a current .mil shotgun correct?   It was in use by civilians before the military picked it up.  The 870 was service shotgun before switching to the 590?   

 

Beretta 92 series. 1911s.  etc etc.  Glocks.  All being relatively in modern use by various .mil units. 

 

That is a good way to show many guns aren't just reserved for US.mil use.   The 92 series was in use by civilians before it was adopted by the military as the M9.  Same for the P320. The P226. 

 

 

[davel501]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:55 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Yep. The mossberg 590 is a current .mil shotgun correct?   It was in use by civilians before the military picked it up.  The 870 was service shotgun before switching to the 590?   

 

Beretta 92 series. 1911s.  etc etc.  Glocks.  All being relatively in modern use by various .mil units. 

 

That is a good way to show many guns aren't just reserved for US.mil use.   The 92 series was in use by civilians before it was adopted by the military as the M9.  Same for the P320. The P226. 

 

 

 

In fairness, the military p320 was drop safe. 

[mab22]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:55 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Yep. The mossberg 590 is a current .mil shotgun correct?   It was in use by civilians before the military picked it up.  The 870 was service shotgun before switching to the 590?   

 

Beretta 92 series. 1911s.  etc etc.  Glocks.  All being relatively in modern use by various .mil units. 

 

That is a good way to show many guns aren't just reserved for US.mil use.   The 92 series was in use by civilians before it was adopted by the military as the M9.  Same for the P320. The P226. 

 

 

You just reminded me of the AR-15, it was in civilian use first AND THEN, the military wanted a copy for their use but it had to have a bunch of modifications. I’ll have to see if I can find that doc. Could be useful for lots of these cases….

[2smartby1/2]

On 2/26/2024 at 8:19 AM, mab22 said:

You just reminded me of the AR-15, it was in civilian use first AND THEN, the military wanted a copy for their use but it had to have a bunch of modifications. I’ll have to see if I can find that doc. Could be useful for lots of these cases….

It is a twisted story. 

 

AR-10 -> AR-15 ->XM-16

 

The Air Force fielded the AR-15 (eventually GAU's) while everyone else went XM-16.    The Air Force (and Stoner) didn't think Forward Assist was necessary, hence the split.   That is the "major" difference between the original (slick side) AR-15 and the XM-16  (there were a few other smaller updates like gates and stuff).   If you look at some of the weapons our "advisors" used early on in Vietnam, along with the original Colt Sporter, you will see that they are slick-sides.  

https://thecoltar15resource.com/2020/12/20/december-1964-shooting-times-article-on-the-colt-sporter/

 

 

There are even original military lowers out there stamped both AR-15 AND XM-16, but that was all during the early transitions. 

 

 

However, the early AR-15 mentioned above is not the same as the "civilian" AR-15's, with the big difference being the lowers are cut differently to accommodate full auto capability.  The semi-only cuts (high shelf vs low shelf vs full cut) were never used by the military as they cannot accommodate the parts needed for select fire function.    

 

Edit, I should add.  If one looks, the different cuts are available.  But the point was that the "civilian' AR-15's were mostly semi-auto only.  However, there were full-auto AR-15's available to the public.  While "legal" at the time, I'm not sure if that was Colt's intention or not, being that they were also selling their Semi-auto only Sporter.  

 

It is a fascinating history. 

 

\

 

LOL, look at those EARLY charging handles on the original AR's. 

 

Edited February 26, 2024 at 05:24 PM by 2smartby1/2

[mab22]

On 2/26/2024 at 11:12 AM, 2smartby1/2 said:

It is a twisted story. 

 

AR-10 -> AR-15 ->XM-16

 

The Air Force fielded the AR-15 (eventually GAU's) while everyone else went XM-16.    The Air Force (and Stoner) didn't think Forward Assist was necessary, hence the split.   That is the "major" difference between the original (slick side) AR-15 and the XM-16  (there were a few other smaller updates like gates and stuff).   If you look at some of the weapons our "advisors" used early on in Vietnam, along with the original Colt Sporter, you will see that they are slick-sides.  

https://thecoltar15resource.com/2020/12/20/december-1964-shooting-times-article-on-the-colt-sporter/

 

 

There are even original military lowers out there stamped both AR-15 AND XM-16, but that was all during the early transitions. 

 

 

However, the early AR-15 mentioned above is not the same as the "civilian" AR-15's, with the big difference being the lowers are cut differently to accommodate full auto capability.  The semi-only cuts (high shelf vs low shelf vs full cut) were never used by the military as they cannot accommodate the parts needed for select fire function.    

 

Edit, I should add.  If one looks, the different cuts are available.  But the point was that the "civilian' AR-15's were mostly semi-auto only.  However, there were full-auto AR-15's available to the public.  While "legal" at the time, I'm not sure if that was Colt's intention or not, being that they were also selling their Semi-auto only Sporter.  

 

It is a fascinating history. 

 

\

 

LOL, look at those EARLY charging handles on the original AR's. 

 

It blows away EasterCrook’s claim that’s it’s a military weapon, the AR15 was sold by colt to the general public BEFORE there were any major contracts or change over from the M14, from what I have been reading. 
It was used for testing by the military, but it is and was different FROM the military version. 
Somewhere I also read that the wanted different bolt finishes and materials, etc, and other component changes so it wasn’t exactly the same darn thing. 
My best analogy is:

It’s like calling a factory 350 V8 Chevrolet motor the same thing as a nascar Chevy V8 350. 
 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 2/26/2024 at 2:28 PM, mab22 said:

It blows away EasterCrook’s claim that’s it’s a military weapon, the AR15 was sold by colt to the general public BEFORE there were any major contracts or change over from the M14, from what I have been reading. 
It was used for testing by the military, but it is and was different FROM the military version. 
Somewhere I also read that the wanted different bolt finishes and materials, etc, and other component changes so it wasn’t exactly the same darn thing. 
My best analogy is:

It’s like calling a factory 350 V8 Chevrolet motor the same thing as a nascar Chevy V8 350. 
 

 

I agree. The .mil adopting a civilian gun or modifying a civilian gun for its own purposes destroys Easterbrook's military test.  Still, if we stick to how guns function (lever, semi, bolt, revolver) all of those guns were at one time or still in use by the military. Easterbrook's test would result in a ban on every gun.  

 

(Youtube video) It looks like Judge McGlynn is telling us that we need to argue Heller and Bruen, and argue against the Friedman/Bevis military test.  

 

(More Youtube)  Now we've got 15 or more points to work on that Judge McGlynn is asking for.  Is he asking for a 15 point summary for every single gun listed in PICA? 

 

 

[splitaxe]

They were talking about how to categorize the weapons for the arguments to speed things up back in early February. I haven’t heard of that was all hashed out yet or not. 

 

Of course the State wants to make it solely about AR’s. 
 

 

[Molly B.]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_c65d712e-d670-11ee-9658-d351d172d757.html

 

Federal judge lays out roadmap for how challenge to Illinois’ gun ban proceeds

Barnett v Raoul - scheduling and discovery conf Feb 28, 2024.pdf

[2A4Cook]

States and cities flip the bird at federal law, and declare themselves sanctuaries and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement for removal.  States flip the bird at federal law and "legalize" marijuana for recreational use.  States and lower courts flip the bird to SCOTUS and the Constitution and enact any bans they darn well please.  No consequences.  And what's the common denominator in every single instance of such lawlessness?  Democrats.  They are a cancer on our country, our freedoms and our very culture.

[mab22]

On 2/28/2024 at 6:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

States and cities flip the bird at federal law, and declare themselves sanctuaries and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement for removal.  States flip the bird at federal law and "legalize" marijuana for recreational use.  States and lower courts flip the bird to SCOTUS and the Constitution and enact any bans they darn well please.  No consequences.  And what's the common denominator in every single instance of such lawlessness?  Democrats.  They are a cancer on our country, our freedoms and our very culture.

Does that mean that WE as FEDERAL citizens as well, get to ignore state laws and claim the supremacy clause?

 

[JTHunter]

On 2/28/2024 at 6:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

States and cities flip the bird at federal law, and declare themselves sanctuaries and refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement for removal.  States flip the bird at federal law and "legalize" marijuana for recreational use.  States and lower courts flip the bird to SCOTUS and the Constitution and enact any bans they darn well please.  No consequences.  And what's the common denominator in every single instance of such lawlessness?  Democrats.  They are a cancer on our country, our freedoms and our very culture.

 

Amen to that !!

[Euler]

On February 14, 2024 at 11:08 PM CST, Euler said:→

...
SC docket for Barnett
SC docket for Harrel

On February 23, Langley filed a petition for certiorari.

SC docket for Langley

[Molly B.]

169

Feb 29, 2024

Order from Judge McGlynn

. Parties shall submit their initial disclosures and written discovery requests with the Court carbon copied no later than March 13, 2024. Parties shall submit the identities of their affirmative experts and their subject matter expertise with the Court carbon copied no later than March 27, 2024, understanding that supplemental expert identification may be necessary. Parties shall respond to requests for written discovery with the Court carbon copied no later than April 3, 2024. Order to issue setting a status conference to discuss the status of discovery in mid-April.

[JTHunter]

On 3/1/2024 at 10:36 AM, Molly B. said:

169

Feb 29, 2024

Order from Judge McGlynn

. Parties shall submit their initial disclosures and written discovery requests with the Court carbon copied no later than March 13, 2024. Parties shall submit the identities of their affirmative experts and their subject matter expertise with the Court carbon copied no later than March 27, 2024, understanding that supplemental expert identification may be necessary. Parties shall respond to requests for written discovery with the Court carbon copied no later than April 3, 2024. Order to issue setting a status conference to discuss the status of discovery in mid-April.

 

It sounds as if Judge McGlynn is keeping things on a fairly tight timeline.  Would you agree or is this a "normal" timeline?

[Molly B.]

This is WARP speed compared to the usual timelines.

[John Q Public]

Ya, he's pi$$ed, as well he should be. 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2024 at 05:11 PM by John Q Public

[ragsbo]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:26 PM, Molly B. said:

This is WARP speed compared to the usual timelines.

But will he hold them to the time frame??

[Upholder]

On Tuesday, March 5th, Raoul filed a request with SCOTUS for an extension of time to file response briefs to the petitions for writ of certiorari "because Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Hunger, who is assigned to draft the brief in opposition for the state respondents, requires additional time to draft that brief" due to the fact that she is very very busy.

 

Quote

This is respondents’ first request for an extension of time. It is not made for purposes of delay, but solely to ensure that respondents’ interests are adequately protected. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-877/302353/20240305172051027_BIO Extension Request AWB Cases Final.pdf

[mab22]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:16 AM, Upholder said:

On Tuesday, March 5th, Raoul filed a request with SCOTUS for an extension of time to file response briefs to the petitions for writ of certiorari "because Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Hunger, who is assigned to draft the brief in opposition for the state respondents, requires additional time to draft that brief" due to the fact that she is very very busy.

 

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-877/302353/20240305172051027_BIO Extension Request AWB Cases Final.pdf

I wish I could do that at work in the middle of project.
Hey boss, can we delay this thing, I need more time as I am busy helping everyone else.

They could also post that in the Emergency Rooms, SORRY for the delay, the Doctor is VERY VERY busy at the moment.

 

[springfield shooter]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:16 AM, Upholder said:

On Tuesday, March 5th, Raoul filed a request with SCOTUS for an extension of time to file response briefs to the petitions for writ of certiorari "because Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Hunger, who is assigned to draft the brief in opposition for the state respondents, requires additional time to draft that brief" due to the fact that she is very very busy.

 

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-877/302353/20240305172051027_BIO Extension Request AWB Cases Final.pdf

 

And 2A rights of the people of IL are being very, very abused.

 

BTW, who makes the call yea or nay on this?

[Euler]

On March 6, 2024 at 12:16 AM CST, Upholder said:→

On Tuesday, March 5th, Raoul filed a request with SCOTUS for an extension of time to file response briefs to the petitions for writ of certiorari ...

Unsaid is that all the plaintiffs in all the Illinois cases, except Langley (Maag), agreed to it. Langley didn't respond to the inquiry at all.

On March 6, 2024 at 08:27 AM CST, springfield shooter said:→

...
BTW, who makes the call yea or nay on this?

Barrett decides, unless she defers to the Court as a whole. For something as simple as an extension, she's unlikely to defer. Also since the plaintiffs agreed, it'll almost certainly be granted.

[Mitch]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:43 PM, Euler said:

Unsaid is that all the plaintiffs in all the Illinois cases, except Langley (Maag), agreed to it. Langley didn't respond to the inquiry at all.


Barrett decides, unless she defers to the Court as a whole. For something as simple as an extension, she's unlikely to defer. Also since the plaintiffs agreed, it'll almost certainly be granted.

Why in the world would the plaintiffs agree to that?

[Upholder]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:47 PM, Mitch said:

Why in the world would the plaintiffs agree to that?

 

Generally, because they would want the same courtesy if they need to ask for an extension.  Additionally, at this stage where the SCOTUS may have the case in a number of conferences before even discussing if they are going to take it up, it may not add any time to the overall process.

[Upholder]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-877.html

 

Quote

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 15, 2024, for all respondents.

 

[Billy Bob]

Part of the excuse was that Hunger had to draw up Amici briefs in a couple of cases. That's a pretty lame reason for a delay. Cases that the State is directly involved in should receive priority.

[springfield shooter]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:43 PM, Euler said:

Unsaid is that all the plaintiffs in all the Illinois cases, except Langley (Maag), agreed to it. Langley didn't respond to the inquiry at all.


Barrett decides, unless she defers to the Court as a whole. For something as simple as an extension, she's unlikely to defer. Also since the plaintiffs agreed, it'll almost certainly be granted.

 

Thanks.

[mab22]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:24 PM, Upholder said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-877.html

 

 

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 15, 2024, for all respondents.
 

How fitting that is tax day….