Jump to content

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

Upholder

By Upholder
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On 4/11/2023 at 10:00 PM, Euler said:

The defendants have filed the denial of a federal preliminary injunction in the Delaware case Delaware State Sportsmen's Association v Delaware (docket) as an advisory authority in this case.

...

The judge in the Delaware case asserted:

  1. that "assault weapons" are not used commonly for self-defense, but are used commonly for mass shootings, therefore they are not covered by the Second Amendment, and the case is not likely to succeed; and
  2. that suspension of Second Amendment civil liberties for limited periods does not cause irreparable harm; furthermore the Second Amendment does not protect a right to sell firearms.

...

 

Sigale for the plaintiffs filed a response (somehow) Sunday.

  1. The Delaware court erred in its definition of "common use."  Per Heller, Second Amendment protections apply to "all instruments that facilitate self-defense."
  2. The Delaware court further erred by analogizing Delaware's AWB to historical bans on Bowie knives and machine guns. Semiautomatic rifles are not similar to either.

I'd have liked to see a response to the second point from the Delaware case. It's well-established First Amendment law that freedom of speech necessitates the right to access that speech (thus the right to provide that speech, e.g., libraries, etc.). Similarly the right to keep arms necessarily implies the right to acquire arms (thus the right to make them available for acquisition).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted
On 4/25/2023 at 2:52 PM, Euler said:

I'd have liked to see a response to the second point from the Delaware case. It's well-established First Amendment law that freedom of speech necessitates the right to access that speech (thus the right to provide that speech, e.g., libraries, etc.). Similarly the right to keep arms necessarily implies the right to acquire arms (thus the right to make them available for acquisition).

 

Too many bone headed judges that still can't get it through to their pea brain that the 2nd is a RIGHT and shall be treated as a RIGHT, even after being told twice by the Supreme Court!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
Quote

The judge in the Delaware case asserted:

  1. that "assault weapons" are not used commonly for self-defense, but are used commonly for mass shootings, therefore they are not covered by the Second Amendment, and the case is not likely to succeed; and

How would they know?
Did they perform an analysis of count of modern rifles used in self defense compared to modern rifles used in mass shootings?
Where are the numbers, or are we just looking and “media” accounts of millions of mass shooting each year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
starwatcher Member

starwatcher

Posted
Posted
On 4/28/2023 at 2:12 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

State wide to everyone

 

Quote

Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary
Case 3:23-cv-00209-SPM Document 99 Filed 04/28/23 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #3250

Page 29 of 29

injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois
statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA
amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11),
(14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court
can address the merits.

 

Found the relevant text above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rangerdeepv Member

Rangerdeepv

Posted
Posted
On 4/28/2023 at 2:38 PM, jsg-07 said:

So, if I understand correctly, we still have to win the legal battles and this is not fully over. However while the battles are being fought, the judge is basically blocking the enforcement of the law? 

 

True.........this is the opening salvo. There is no way Pizza the Hut and Swami Kwame are going to let this one lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRE Member

MRE

Posted
Posted
On 4/28/2023 at 2:55 PM, South Side 27 said:

Does anyone know if the court of appeals can overturn the TRO in the meantime? Or is the injunction in place until the case is heard by the appeals court?


Appellate Courts can, and sometimes do, overturn preliminary injunctions. However, they tend to grant a District court wide deference 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/28/2023 at 2:31 PM, Grub said:

Yes!! Time to make a PSA order once the online sellers start adjusting things.

Report back when that happens, please.  They fast-tracked shutting orders down... I'm hoping they'll be as fast coming back, but wouldn't be surprised if they slow-walk it.

 

As Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne said, "Alfred, let's go shopping."

Edited by EdDinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRE Member

MRE

Posted
Posted

Key portion of the opinion that other Districts have (probably intentionally) gotten completely wrong:


“Defendants also argued that “[t]he Act restricts weapons and accessories not commonly used for self-defense today.” (Doc. 37, p. 26). Similarly, this argument is misplaced. Bruen clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects “possession and use” of weapons “in common use” not just weapons in common use for self-defense as Defendants’ argued.”

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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