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

[Sol-Invictus]

I hope the judge is up to date on all his vaxxxs.

[ealcala31]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:13 PM, gunuser17 said:

I am not sure why anyone believed that the state had to take some action in the district court before filing a notice of appeal and motion for stay at the 7th Circuit.  I an not aware of any rule that required a request for reconsideration or stay of the order at the district court.  Now I don't agree with the 7th's stay but I don't see any obvious argument that the State or Judge Easterbrook did something in violation of any rules of civil or appellate procedure.  The bottom line I suppose is that no one should give legal advice to a customer or anyone else unless they engage you as their lawyer..

I'd have to say, good advice. That's going to be my viewpoint from now on and it was a costly one. The issue many of us Dealer's have is this was the info that was passed to us. I am in FFL of IL and these were the messages passed to us from the lawyers representing us. When most Dealer's asked what's next after the injunction, this is the answer we got, including a possible rebuke the state might get for not following proper procedure. I do not think most Dealer's, including myself, was giving legal advice to our customers we were merely telling them what was told to us. The perception is, it probably did seem like legal advice. 

[davel501]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:35 AM, ealcala31 said:

I'd have to say, good advice. That's going to be my viewpoint from now on and it was a costly one. The issue many of us Dealer's have is this was the info that was passed to us. I am in FFL of IL and these were the messages passed to us from the lawyers representing us. When most Dealer's asked what's next after the injunction, this is the answer we got, including a possible rebuke the state might get for not following proper procedure. I do not think most Dealer's, including myself, was giving legal advice to our customers we were merely telling them what was told to us. The perception is, it probably did seem like legal advice. 

 

Don't beat yourself or your lawyers up. This is definitely a case of different judge different outcome. This guy clearly took Bruen as a personal attack. This one gets worse before it gets better. 

[yurimodin]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:35 AM, ealcala31 said:

I'd have to say, good advice. That's going to be my viewpoint from now on and it was a costly one. The issue many of us Dealer's have is this was the info that was passed to us. I am in FFL of IL and these were the messages passed to us from the lawyers representing us. When most Dealer's asked what's next after the injunction, this is the answer we got, including a possible rebuke the state might get for not following proper procedure. I do not think most Dealer's, including myself, was giving legal advice to our customers we were merely telling them what was told to us. The perception is, it probably did seem like legal advice. 

I still call BS, why do they get to jump steps in the process while us peasants have to spend millions of dollars and several years crawling all the way up each single individual step to SCOTUS.....

 

 

EDIT FOR FUN:...

Edited May 5, 2023 at 02:22 PM by yurimodin
added

[ealcala31]

On 5/5/2023 at 8:59 AM, davel501 said:

 

Don't beat yourself or your lawyers up. This is definitely a case of different judge different outcome. This guy clearly took Bruen as a personal attack. This one gets worse before it gets better. 

👍

[ealcala31]

On 5/5/2023 at 9:07 AM, yurimodin said:

I still call BS, why do they get to jump steps in the process while us peasants have to spend millions of dollars and several years crawling all the way up each single individual step to SCOTUS.....

 

 

EDIT FOR FUN:...

Agreed. We play by the rules and they don't.

[2A4Cook]

They're Democrats.  They stick together like glue, form a pack and attack like the relentless, rabid dogs they are.  And they generally get what they want.  Why, it's for the children, you racists!

[Molly B.]

 

[gunuser17]

I don't like what has happened yurimodin but exactly what step do you think that the state skipped?  I don't know of a single step that was skipped.  There is no requirement to go back to the district court judge or wait on that court before they file the notice of appeal and ask for a stay.  Those that spread that idea have never pointed to a single rule that supported that position.  As best I can tell it was just urban legend.  The state could wait up to 30 days to file in the 7th Circuit but no requirement to wait.  I would be happy if someone could show that I was wrong but I have not seen that yet.

[steveTA84]

What the heck Does this mean? That the motion in front of McGlynn is moot because the court above him stayed it?

[Upholder]

On 5/5/2023 at 12:39 PM, steveTA84 said:

What the heck Does this mean? That the motion in front of McGlynn is moot because the court above him stayed it?

 

That is the way that I would read it, yes.   McGlynn will not be issuing any order regarding staying his Preliminary Injunction since that is now in the hands of the 7th Circuit or SCOTUS.

[EdDinIL]

Maxon's in Des Plaines sent out a detailed update on recent events, including answering the question about how they will handle in-process transactions.

 

Source: https://www.maxonshooters.com/blog/il-assault-weapons-ban-is-back

 

Quote

What We Will Do With Pending Sales:

 

Right now, we will halt sales and transfers of banned guns and magazines. We believe it is wise to wait until next week to see how this plays out in court, so unless a buyer is unwilling to sit tight for a week, we will set the purchased firearms aside pending our court action.

 

If a dealer says that they will sell you a banned firearm or magazine, remember that you are exposing yourself to criminal charges.  It is not worth it to expose ones self to criminal prosecution and the loss of your gun rights when we are so close to winning.

 

 

[G214me]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:33 PM, ealcala31 said:

It's disappointing that a few customers are blaming me for this. I did give them the same advice we all shared. Proper procedure was Judge McGlynn would deny a stay of his injunction and then the state would appeal to the 7th Circuit. That's what I get for thinking proper procedure would apply in this case. The cost of doing business...

This is wise advice. Judge Easterbrook couldn't be bothered to clarify anything in the pile of garbage stay he puked up. He obviously has no concern for the people or businesses that are mid transaction.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Quote

 

Via wiki:

 

Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter individual's usage of their legal rights.

The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g. SLAPP suits), or winning a public relations victory.

 

Alternatively, it may describe a tactic used by repressive regimes to label and discourage civil society or individuals from claiming their legal rights via national or international legal systems. This is especially common in situations when individuals and civil society use non-violent methods to highlight or oppose discrimination, corruption, lack of democracy, limiting freedom of speech, violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.

 

 

I hate to sound like a broken record.  Our side is fighting a legal battle and a lawfare battle.  

[Tango7]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:50 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I hate to sound like a broken record.  Our side is fighting a legal battle and a lawfare battle.  

 

And unlike the state, we don't have the bottomless purse of those we're assaulting or appointees with badges to intimidate those being oppressed.

[Plinkermostly]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:58 PM, Tango7 said:

 

And unlike the state, we don't have the bottomless purse of those we're assaulting or appointees with badges to intimidate those being oppressed.

 

AND remember that we pay for BOTH sides of this lawfare!

 

Got to love Illanoy.

[Molly B.]

Quote

On consideration of Docketing Statement filed by appellants on May 2, 2023, in
which they state that these appeals are related to the appeals in Herrera v. Raoul, Appeal
No. 23-1793,
IT IS ORDERED that the appellants and appellees in all five appeals file, on or
before May 11, 2023, a Statement advising the court whether Appeal No. 23-1793 should
be consolidated with the four appeals that the court consolidated on May 3, 2023. The
parties may file a joint response, but any response must fully explain why the appeals
should, or should not, be consolidated.

 

7th circuit issued today

And Judge McGlynn issued this order today:

2023-5-5: Motion to Stay the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order Pending Interlocutory Appeal is now moot. Order allowing plaintiffs to file any response thereto is now vacated. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 5/5/2023.

 

 

Barnett_v_Raoul_5-5_Order.pdf

[yurimodin]

On 5/5/2023 at 3:31 PM, Molly B. said:

 

7th circuit issued today

And Judge McGlynn issued this order today:

2023-5-5: Motion to Stay the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order Pending Interlocutory Appeal is now moot. Order allowing plaintiffs to file any response thereto is now vacated. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 5/5/2023.

 

 

Barnett_v_Raoul_5-5_Order.pdf 100.82 kB · 1 download

IANAL.....what's that mean

Edited May 5, 2023 at 08:42 PM by yurimodin
typo

[Euler]

On 5/5/2023 at 4:42 PM, yurimodin said:

IANAL.....what's that mean

 

1. CA7 is considering consolidating Herrera (from the northern district) with the four cases from the southern district (already consolidated as Barnett).
2. As pointed out above, McGlynn is no longer going to consider staying his own order on Barnett, since CA7 has already done it.

[Upholder]

On 5/5/2023 at 3:42 PM, yurimodin said:

IANAL.....what's that mean

 

a) The 7th circuit order is that they want to hear from the plaintiffs and defendants in the cases that came via Judge McGlynn if they agree to or oppose the consolidation of their cases at the Circuit court level with the Javier Herrera v. Kwame Raoul case.

 

b) Judge McGlynn will not be issuing a ruling about staying his Preliminary Injunction as Judge Easterbrook has already stayed the Preliminary Injunction.  He is also withdrawing his permission for the Plaintiffs to file a response to the Defendant's motion because he doesn't need to read it anymore.

[MrTriple]

On 5/5/2023 at 3:48 PM, Euler said:

 

1. CA7 is considering consolidating Herrera (from the northern district) with the four cases from the southern district (already consolidated as Barnett).
2. As pointed out above, McGlynn is no longer going to consider staying his own order on Barnett, since CA7 has already done it.

Consolidating for a merits hearing, or consolidating for an injunction hearing?

[Euler]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:24 PM, MrTriple said:

Consolidating for a merits hearing, or consolidating for an injunction hearing?

 

The only things in the appeals court presently are injunctions, although there's no reason for CA7 to consider any of the cases separately when they boomerang after the cases are disposed at the district level. As far as CA7 is concerned, the issue is the state law. It doesn't matter where the case originated inside Illinois.

[MrTriple]

On 5/5/2023 at 4:34 PM, Euler said:

 

The only things in the appeals court presently are injunctions, although there's no reason for CA7 to consider any of the cases separately when they boomerang after the cases are disposed at the district level. As far as CA7 is concerned, the issue is the state law. It doesn't matter where the case originated inside Illinois.

And if consolidated, is the assignment of a judge for the merits hearing purely a matter of luck of the draw, or will the cases be consolidated into the lowest-numbered case and sent back to whichever judge was originally assigned to that case?

[steveTA84]

These A-holes need another lawsuit 

 

 

[steveTA84]

This seriously is another lawsuit! How can people that bought and took possession of “banned” items during the injunction have no way to theoretically comply? Some people gonna have to make some very tough decisions with what they’re gonna do

[MRE]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:16 PM, steveTA84 said:

This seriously is another lawsuit! How can people that bought and took possession of “banned” items during the injunction have no way to theoretically comply? Some people gonna have to make some very tough decisions with what they’re gonna do

Not just took possession, but took possession with the approval of the State when the background check was run. Pritzker and ISP are building an unnecessary tinder box here.

[Euler]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:36 PM, MrTriple said:

And if consolidated, is the assignment of a judge for the merits hearing purely a matter of luck of the draw, or will the cases be consolidated into the lowest-numbered case and sent back to whichever judge was originally assigned to that case?

 

A motion could be heard by a single judge (e.g., the motion for an emergency stay, which Easterbrook just issued), but an appeal itself would be heard by at least a panel as assigned by the chief judge using whatever procedure she has established. A panel or full court can review the actions of a single judge, too. Anything sent back down gets sent back to its original court.

 

Since no court at the district level has disposed a case yet (Herrera or Barnett), there's no case to appeal yet.

 

Barnett seems to be the first case in the entire nation where all the pieces of pro-2A and anti-2A efforts are in play regarding an AWB. New York decided to go there for handguns and carry before anyone else in the wake of Bruen, but Illinois decided to go there for rifles before anyone else in the wake of Bruen. We also have McGlynn to thank for not delaying on deciding things. He could have buried the case in procedure, like Schoenthal is buried until next year, but he didn't. CA7 could be getting some instruction soon on how to apply Bruen to AWBs in Bevis.

 

As a bonus, since CA7 wants arguments on why Friedman and Wilson don't apply, Chicago's and Highland Park's AWBs could get nullified "for free."

[G214me]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:16 PM, steveTA84 said:

This seriously is another lawsuit! How can people that bought and took possession of “banned” items during the injunction have no way to theoretically comply? Some people gonna have to make some very tough decisions with what they’re gonna do

 

On 5/5/2023 at 5:26 PM, MRE said:

Not just took possession, but took possession with the approval of the State when the background check was run. Pritzker and ISP are building an unnecessary tinder box here.

Just another example of how tyrannical this state is, not to mention sloppy, slow, and dumb. This is what happens when you have a large idiot population that votes stupid. Court orders don't matter anymore. Wouldn't be surprised if everyone with a TRO gets some surprise "rule" like this eventually.

[mab22]

On 5/5/2023 at 5:59 PM, Euler said:

 

A motion could be heard by a single judge (e.g., the motion for an emergency stay, which Easterbrook just issued), but an appeal itself would be heard by at least a panel as assigned by the chief judge using whatever procedure she has established. A panel or full court can review the actions of a single judge, too. Anything sent back down gets sent back to its original court.

 

Since no court at the district level has disposed a case yet (Herrera or Barnett), there's no case to appeal yet.

 

Barnett seems to be the first case in the entire nation where all the pieces of pro-2A and anti-2A efforts are in play regarding an AWB. New York decided to go there for handguns and carry before anyone else in the wake of Bruen, but Illinois decided to go there for rifles before anyone else in the wake of Bruen. We also have McGlynn to thank for not delaying on deciding things. He could have buried the case in procedure, like Schoenthal is buried until next year, but he didn't. CA7 could be getting some instruction soon on how to apply Bruen to AWBs in Bevis.

 

As a bonus, since CA7 wants arguments on why Friedman and Wilson don't apply, Chicago's and Highland Park's AWBs could get nullified "for free."

So let’s say the argument is made that Friedman and Wilson don’t apply due to Bruen, and the court/judge agree’s that they just whacked themselves. Does someone have to challenge Chicago and Highland park and just point to that ruling/decision in the appellate court to get those nullified?

I maybe over simplifying. 

Edited May 6, 2023 at 01:07 AM by mab22

[Euler]

On 5/5/2023 at 9:06 PM, mab22 said:

So let’s say the argument is made that Friedman and Wilson don’t apply due to Bruen, and the court/judge agree’s that they just whacked themselves. Does someone have to challenge Chicago and Highland park and just point to that ruling/decision in the appellate court to get those nullified?

...

 

I think that it depends on how CA7 says it.