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

[ragsbo]

On 4/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, mab22 said:

 

How would they enforce a ruling or decision?

 

One thing they could do is when the lower courts fail to abide by their ruling, over turn it immediately and tell them to actually read the ruling. Stop dragging their feet on whether or not they will even hear it. The crap going on in Illinois should have been tossed already and the USSC should have already ruled it was unconstitutional.   Plus, you going to tell me that every other court in this country can hold someone in contempt except the Supreme Court???? Rule them on contempt and send the US Marshals to enforce it. 

Edited April 18, 2024 at 11:36 PM by ragsbo

[mab22]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:35 PM, ragsbo said:

One thing they could do is when the lower courts fail to abide by their ruling, over turn it immediately and tell them to actually read the ruling. Stop dragging their feet on whether or not they will even hear it. The crap going on in Illinois should have been tossed already and the USSC should have already ruled it was unconstitutional.   Plus, you going to tell me that every other court in this country can hold someone in contempt except the Supreme Court???? Rule them on contempt and send the US Marshals to enforce it. 

I would love to see fatty being cuffed and stuffed by us Marshall’s, along with Harmon and the speaker. 
 

[mauserme]

On 4/18/2024 at 5:03 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings. For example, many public schools held classroom prayers long after the Court had banned government-sponsored religious activities. 

 

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/the-judiciary/the-supreme-court-in-operation#:~:text=The Supreme Court has no,to carry out its rulings.

 

VooDoo

 

Well, if Illinois' sheriffs and gun owners response to PICA is any indication, SCOTUS rulings can be enforced by pretty ordinary folks.

 

That seems fitting to me.

 

 

[Flynn]

On 4/18/2024 at 2:21 PM, mab22 said:

 

How would they enforce a ruling or decision?

 

 

They would accept every appeal, reverse and remand it back to the lower court telling them to read Heller/Bruen and try again and thus never let any lower court ruling of the contrary stand...

 

But, they of course won't do this with the 2nd...

[davel501]

On 4/20/2024 at 2:30 PM, Flynn said:

 

They would accept every appeal, reverse and remand it back to the lower court telling them to read Heller/Bruen and try again and thus never let any lower court ruling of the contrary stand...

 

But, they of course won't do this with the 2nd...

 

But then the left wins because this stays in court forever while they happily enforce it. 

[Flynn]

On 4/20/2024 at 3:00 PM, davel501 said:

 

But then the left wins because this stays in court forever while they happily enforce it. 

 

You can't enforce the previous ruling of that lower court's interpretation that it's constitutional when it's been reversed by a higher court and the SCOTUS could go one step further and issue a stay on enforcement of any law in question with that reverse and remand order...  But, the fact is the SCOTUS won't do this, they are too stuck in their 'polite' ways...

[davel501]

On 4/20/2024 at 3:14 PM, Flynn said:

 

You can't enforce the previous ruling of that lower court's interpretation that it's constitutional when it's been reversed by a higher court and the SCOTUS could go one step further and issue a stay on enforcement of any law in question with that reverse and remand order...  But, the fact is the SCOTUS won't do this, they are too stuck in their 'polite' ways...

 

Exactly. They'll leave the stay in place. 

[mab22]

On 4/19/2024 at 6:27 PM, mauserme said:

 

Well, if Illinois' sheriffs and gun owners response to PICA is any indication, SCOTUS rulings can be enforced by pretty ordinary folks.

 

That seems fitting to me.

 

 

I don’t know about that. 
A Sheriff is not going to stop the State police or local police from enforcing PICA, nor or the going tell the judge handing your case that is unconstitutional.

[davel501]

On 4/21/2024 at 9:43 PM, mab22 said:

I don’t know about that. 
A Sheriff is not going to stop the State police or local police from enforcing PICA, nor or the going tell the judge handing your case that is unconstitutional.

They can refuse to house them in their jail on the pica charges. There's some wiggle room in there if there are other charges too. 

[mab22]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:11 PM, davel501 said:

They can refuse to house them in their jail on the pica charges. There's some wiggle room in there if there are other charges too. 

You go first and see if they refuse or not. What’s to prevent State or Locals from using another county, OR the sheriff facing some obstruction charge or reduced funding for not complying and caving in? 
Look at the current federal REGIME, and how they use law enforcement and threats that oppose them. 
BTW - How do you think it will work out for those in Cook County or other hardcore Marxist areas?

 

Edited April 22, 2024 at 03:44 AM by mab22

[davel501]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:43 PM, mab22 said:

You go first and see if they refuse or not. What’s to prevent State or Locals from using another county, OR the sheriff facing some obstruction charge or reduced funding for not complying and caving in? 
Look at the current federal REGIME, and how they use law enforcement and threats that oppose them. 
BTW - How do you think it will work out for those in Cook County or other hardcore Marxist areas?

 

 

Go read about how sheriffs work. Next, look at the map of sherrifs that support this. You can tell based on your location how easy it would be to arrest someone under the statute. 

 

This whole conversation has already been had a year or more ago. Not sure why you're trying to scare people now. 

[mab22]

On 4/21/2024 at 11:07 PM, davel501 said:

 

Go read about how sheriffs work. Next, look at the map of sherrifs that support this. You can tell based on your location how easy it would be to arrest someone under the statute. 

 

This whole conversation has already been had a year or more ago. Not sure why you're trying to scare people now. 

Not trying to scare anyone. I don't think we have had any victories here, the law is still on the books and there are NO injunctions that I know of.

[bmyers]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:46 AM, mab22 said:

Not trying to scare anyone. I don't think we have had any victories here, the law is still on the books and there are NO injunctions that I know of.

I think by the simple fact that we haven't seen enforcement of the act, we have a stay of enforcement of it. The anti-gun has had a victory in that weapons they deem dangerous are no longer for sale. 

 

Yet, I think at this point both sides are at a stalemate waiting for the courts to make the next move. I don't expect anything exciting to happen until the next major court order has been released.

[mauserme]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:46 AM, mab22 said:

Not trying to scare anyone. I don't think we have had any victories here, the law is still on the books and there are NO injunctions that I know of.

 

On 4/22/2024 at 7:50 AM, bmyers said:

I think by the simple fact that we haven't seen enforcement of the act, we have a stay of enforcement of it. The anti-gun has had a victory in that weapons they deem dangerous are no longer for sale. 

 

Yet, I think at this point both sides are at a stalemate waiting for the courts to make the next move. I don't expect anything exciting to happen until the next major court order has been released.

 

Not to stray too far off topic, but it isn't just that they haven't enforced it. They found out they have no reasonable way to enforce it.  And it's not just the sheriffs.  Municipal chiefs are quietly avoiding it.  Even ISP, when they got done making rules that tried to make the statute workable, didn't bother with the public outreach campaign mandated in the law.

 

They passed this with the expectation of obedience.  They achieved, from many gun owners, irrelevance.  They are wondering at this point what they can actually pass going forward, that won't be ignored.  They are wondering if anything else is being ignored.  With no encouragement from anyone, they've been given a huge grass roots wake up call.

 

When you look at the overall picture I think there are some victories to be found.  Defining that only in terms of injunctions is short sighted.

 

 

 

 

 

[ealcala31]

I am going to disagree 1000% w/enforcement. 

1. Are banned firearms being sold at local gun shops or being shipped in from online sales. NOPE. The law is ENFORCEMENT. 

2. The State's immediate challenge of the Injunction: (which won) froze sales, put almost all sales in limbo, and cost FFL Dealers thousands of dollars in return shipping cost, refunds, credit card fees, and down right p*****-OFF CUSTOMERS. ENFORCEMENT SUCCESSFUL.

3. Because of vague interpretions of PICA, more firearms & accessories are being banned than needs to be. ENFORCEMENT has flourished.

4. Now, if you meant criminal charges, who has direct knowledge of traffic/criminal stops where the person was in violation of PICA and NOT charged?

[mauserme]

On 4/22/2024 at 12:52 PM, ealcala31 said:

I am going to disagree 1000% w/enforcement. 

1. Are banned firearms being sold at local gun shops or being shipped in from online sales. NOPE. The law is ENFORCEMENT. 

2. The State's immediate challenge of the Injunction: (which won) froze sales, put almost all sales in limbo, and cost FFL Dealers thousands of dollars in return shipping cost, refunds, credit card fees, and down right p*****-OFF CUSTOMERS. ENFORCEMENT SUCCESSFUL.

3. Because of vague interpretions of PICA, more firearms & accessories are being banned than needs to be. ENFORCEMENT has flourished.

4. Now, if you meant criminal charges, who has direct knowledge of traffic/criminal stops where the person was in violation of PICA and NOT charged?

 

Your argument #4 is reminiscent of things we used to hear about fanny pack carry, when folks would sometimes insist that a lack of charges was itself evidence of enforcement because we couldn't show that the charges were dropped, or deserved but not imposed.  Sometimes it's as simple as there being no charges.

 

The rest of the things you mentioned are a result of voluntary compliance, not enforcement.  You are assuming things about that compliance that may or may not be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[ragsbo]

On 4/22/2024 at 7:46 AM, mab22 said:

Not trying to scare anyone. I don't think we have had any victories here, the law is still on the books and there are NO injunctions that I know of.

You are exactly right! We have gotten NOTHING out of these law suits so far except the run around and still getting screwed out of our rights.

[ealcala31]

On 4/22/2024 at 1:01 PM, mauserme said:

 

Your argument #4 is reminiscent of things we used to hear about fanny pack carry, when folks would sometimes insist that a lack of charges was itself evidence of enforcement because we couldn't show that the charges were dropped, or deserved but not imposed.  Sometimes it's as simple as there being no charges.

 

The rest of the things you mentioned are a result of voluntary compliance, not enforcement.  You are assuming things about that compliance that may or may not be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

If PICA was a voluntary compliance law, I would not be following it, period. To be honest, every law gets followed on the threat of enforcement. As we know, prosecutors and law enforcement can use their discretion to enforce or not enforce a statute.

[Upholder]

Today, a reply brief was filed with the SCOTUS in the consolidated Harrel case:

 

 

2024.04.26_Reply_Brief_for_Petitioners.pdf

[ShallNotComply]

On 4/22/2024 at 12:52 PM, ealcala31 said:

4. Now, if you meant criminal charges, who has direct knowledge of traffic/criminal stops where the person was in violation of PICA and NOT charged?

 

Yea, it has happened a few times in madison & st clair counties since 1/1/24. I remembered a few of the articles but I believe I've seen a few other cases in the news with similar outcomes.

 

"Because Fair did not possess a FOID card, it would follow that the weapon was not registered under the "assault weapon" ban, which barred sale or possession of specific guns, including AR-style weapons, but granted an exception for weapons registered before Jan. 1. However, he was not charged under that law. A spokesman for the Madison County State’s Attorney’s Office noted that under the law a first-time violation is a Class A misdemeanor. “Such a misdemeanor charge was not considered here, and we charged the felony offenses we felt were appropriate given the facts of the case as presented to the State’s Attorney’s Office.” Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Haine was among the majority of Illinois state’s attorney’s and county sheriffs in opposition to the ban, with challenges still working their way through the federal court system even as it takes effect.

 

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/two-face-multiple-felonies-related-altered-weapons-18599848.php

 

The St. Clair County State’s Attorney’s Office has charged the 44-year-old with six counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon with body armor and one count of unlawful use of a firearm projectile.

 

https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/03/20/with-arrest-armed-man-metro-east-huge-tragedy-was-avoided/

 

 

[ealcala31]

On 4/26/2024 at 3:06 PM, ShallNotComply said:

 

Yea, it has happened a few times in madison & st clair counties since 1/1/24. I remembered a few of the articles but I believe I've seen a few other cases in the news with similar outcomes.

 

"Because Fair did not possess a FOID card, it would follow that the weapon was not registered under the ""assault weapon"" ban, which barred sale or possession of specific guns, including AR-style weapons, but granted an exception for weapons registered before Jan. 1. However, he was not charged under that law. A spokesman for the Madison County State’s Attorney’s Office noted that under the law a first-time violation is a Class A misdemeanor. “Such a misdemeanor charge was not considered here, and we charged the felony offenses we felt were appropriate given the facts of the case as presented to the State’s Attorney’s Office.” Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Haine was among the majority of Illinois state’s attorney’s and county sheriffs in opposition to the ban, with challenges still working their way through the federal court system even as it takes effect.

 

https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/two-face-multiple-felonies-related-altered-weapons-18599848.php

 

The St. Clair County State’s Attorney’s Office has charged the 44-year-old with six counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon with body armor and one count of unlawful use of a firearm projectile.

 

https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/03/20/with-arrest-armed-man-metro-east-huge-tragedy-was-avoided/

 

 

None of the charges were PICA specific charges. This happens all the time in Chicago as well, yet we have not seen any PICA charges as stand alone charges.

[ealcala31]

On 4/22/2024 at 2:28 PM, ragsbo said:

You are exactly right! We have gotten NOTHING out of these law suits so far except the run around and still getting screwed out of our rights.

You DAMN right. When SCOTUS sees a direct refusal to accept their precedent, they need to act. I support the long standing tradition that SCOTUS operates on, but when they notice, and according to Mark Smith they do, SCOTUS needs to act. What's the point of making a final national precedence when the inferior courts clearly ignore it. They need to take a stand and allow quick Injunctions, or some other method, until the lower courts defiance stops.

[Black Flag]

Quote

one count of unlawful use of a firearm projectile.

 

Is that when you miss?

 

[Euler]

On April 27, 2024 at 09:41 PM CDT, Black Flag said:→

Quote

one count of unlawful use of a firearm projectile.

Is that when you miss?

In Illinois law, possession is a use, so "use of firearm projectile" is possession of ammunition.

[JTHunter]

On 4/27/2024 at 11:02 PM, Euler said:

In Illinois law, possession is a use, so "use of firearm projectile" is possession of ammunition.

 

IOW, just a way to pile on more charges and penalties.

[mab22]

On 4/26/2024 at 7:12 PM, ealcala31 said:

None of the charges were PICA specific charges. This happens all the time in Chicago as well, yet we have not seen any PICA charges as stand alone charges.

They don't want to actually fight it in court. So, as long as no one is charged the Marxists party gets to keep it's threat over the rest of us.

 

[ealcala31]

On 4/29/2024 at 5:05 PM, mab22 said:

They don't want to actually fight it in court. So, as long as no one is charged the Marxists party gets to keep it's threat over the rest of us.

 

Yes they do 🖕

[Hap]

On 4/29/2024 at 5:05 PM, mab22 said:

They don't want to actually fight it in court. So, as long as no one is charged the Marxists party gets to keep it's threat over the rest of us.

 

They will avoid charging wherever possible until SCOTUS is done with the matter.

[Upholder]

A reply brief was filed today with SCOTUS in the consolidated Barnett case:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-879/308688/20240430134634000_2024-04-30 Final Barnett cert reply.pdf

 

One highlight:

 

[Upholder]

Also today, the GOA and Gun Owners Foundation filled their reply brief with SCOTUS:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1010/308637/20240430105414515_23-1010 GOA GOF Reply FINAL.pdf