Jump to content

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


Upholder
 Share

Recommended Posts

Defendants' Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing:

 

 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94369.33.0.pdf

 

 

Quote

Among other things, the agreed stipulation provides one deadline for one
consolidated response by the State Defendants to Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction
(March 2, 2023), and another deadline for the State Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to all
of Plaintiffs’ respective complaints (March 16, 2023).

 

Edited by Upholder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Kostas Moros, one of the attorneys involved:

 

Quote

Illinois cases status conference - Judge McGlynn will likely consolidate the four cases heard today into one. Barnett v. Raoul is the lead case.

 

He seems to want to move this along as quickly. He didn't even appear to want to let Plaintiffs do reply briefs, implying he didn't think it necessary (which could be good or bad I guess). He said Plaintiffs laid out the history in their complaints. But after we pointed out we needed a chance to respond to what the State claims are analogues, he ultimately decided to let each Plaintiff do a 15 page reply, or 60 pages total, due March 23.

 

Also, despite the parties all thinking oral argument unnecessary, the judge would like one, and will set aside a whole afternoon for it on April 12.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2023 at 7:13 PM, Upholder said:

 

Order said:

CALEB BARNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-209-SPM

** designated Lead Case

 

DANE HARREL, et al.,

Plaintiffs

vs.

KWAME RAOUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-141-SPM

 

JEREMY W. LANGLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BRENDAN KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-192-SPM

 

FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES OF ILLINOIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JAY ROBERT “J.B.” PRITZKER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-215-SPM

...

The above-referenced cases are consolidated for the purposes of discovery and injunctive relief, with Barnett, et al. v. Raoul, et al, 23-cv-209 designated as the lead case.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2023/03/01/illinois-sheriffs-bring-their-opposition-to-gun-mag-ban-to-federal-court-n67932

The association has submitted an amicus brief in opposition to HB 5471, with the ISA’s executive director Jim Kaitschuk telling the Center Square that most of the sheriffs across the state are deeply concerned that the new law is “infringing upon the rights of those legal gun owners across the state.”

 

... more at the link!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a Notice that the state has filed their answer to the MPi

 

 

Document Number:

37

   

Docket Text:
RESPONSE in Opposition re [10] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brendan F. Kelly, Jay Robert Pritzker, Kwame Raoul. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 - Newspaper Articles Cited, # (2) Exhibit 2 - Declaration of Robert Morgan, # (3) Exhibit 3 - Declaration of William E. Demuth II, # (4) Exhibit 4 - Declaration of Louis Klarevas - Volume 1 of 2 (Declaration and Exhibits A-M), # (5) Exhibit 4 - Declaration of Louis Klarevas Volume 2 of 2 (Exhibits N-U), # (6) Exhibit 5 - Declaration of Phil Andrew, # (7) Exhibit 6 - Declaration of Ryan Busse, # (8) Exhibit 7 - Declaration of Dennis Baron, # (9) Exhibit 8 - Declaration of James E. Yurgealitis, # (10) Exhibit 9 - Declaration of Martin A. Schreiber, # (11) Exhibit 10 - Declaration of Randolph Roth, # (12) Exhibit 11 - Declaration of Robert Spitzer, # (13) Exhibit 12 - Declaration of Brian Delay, # (14) Exhibit 13 - Declaration of Stephen Hargarten, # (15) Exhibit 14 - Excerpts from Historical Regulations Cited)(Wells, Christopher)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 11:58 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I just got a Notice that the state has filed their answer to the MPi

...

 

Updated on CourtListener from PACER. I didn't buy any of the documents, though. I'll let someone else be the first. There's one main document (72 pages) plus 15 exhibits (several hundred pages).

 

EDIT: Somebody just bought the main document, so free download for the rest of us.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A brief read of the 70 page response shows that their primary arguments are that it really is "dangerous [or] unusual", that it has to be commonly used for self defense as opposed to "lawful purposes, such as self defense", that magazines are accessories as opposed to arms and therefore not common (and they're not commonly used in self defense regardless).

 

I think my favorite part of their twisted reasoning is that they claim that the AR-15 and M-16 are the same except for the fact that one is full-automatic and since the M-16 is named as something that could be banned in Heller, clearly the AR-15 can be banned as well since it's a weapon of war.

 

My runner-up for most twisted is claiming that it's not protected because it's a weapon only suited for war, and then citing Miller as allowing classes of arms to be excluded from protection (which denied protection to weapons "not suited for military use").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 2:00 PM, Upholder said:

A brief read of the 70 page response shows that their primary arguments are that it really is "dangerous [or] unusual", that it has to be commonly used for self defense as opposed to "lawful purposes, such as self defense", that magazines are accessories as opposed to arms and therefore not common (and they're not commonly used in self defense regardless).

 

I think my favorite part of their twisted reasoning is that they claim that the AR-15 and M-16 are the same except for the fact that one is full-automatic and since the M-16 is named as something that could be banned in Heller, clearly the AR-15 can be banned as well since it's a weapon of war.

 

My runner-up for most twisted is claiming that it's not protected because it's a weapon only suited for war, and then citing Miller as allowing classes of arms to be excluded from protection (which denied protection to weapons "not suited for military use").

They said the phrase "M-16 rifles and the like" so many times it made me read Heller again. It reads to me that SCOTUS was pointing out how silly the argument is that the 2nd amendment only applied to use in a militia but also weapons most useful in military service (M-16 rifles and the like) can be banned. In other words, weapons of war is exactly what the 2nd amendment protects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 4:04 PM, Upholder said:

A few of the Exhibits are now also available from the court listener docket

 

If people buy documents from PACER and upload them to CourtListener, then they become free for the rest of us. CourtListener scrapes the Federal docket listings every day, but someone has to buy the documents individually and then upload them (except for the ones the Feds publish for free, which is usually just the original complaint and the final decision). Also people can upload the dockets to CourtListener independently for everyone to get more frequent updates.

 

CourtListener is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. It takes money to run the servers and do the daily scrapings.

 

Since it looked like "Bishop on the Air" bought all the documents for his video, it would have been nice if he had uploaded them to CourtListener, too. It doesn't cost extra to upload. Oh, well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 3:28 PM, Euler said:

 

If people buy documents from PACER and upload them to CourtListener, then they become free for the rest of us. CourtListener scrapes the Federal docket listings every day, but someone has to buy the documents individually and then upload them (except for the ones the Feds publish for free, which is usually just the original complaint and the final decision). Also people can upload the dockets to CourtListener independently for everyone to get more frequent updates.

 

CourtListener is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. It takes money to run the servers and do the daily scrapings.

 

Since it looked like "Bishop on the Air" bought all the documents for his video, it would have been nice if he had uploaded them to CourtListener, too. It doesn't cost extra to upload. Oh, well.

You can always leave him a comment or send him a message asking him to and informing him of this opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 6:38 PM, steveTA84 said:

If you’re drinking anything, put it down before reading this 720D0AB3-6F6B-417E-88E2-7B3969710021.png.2ecf5e45e4ea27c2d9d392c82f1666e1.png

 

Do the people that wrote for the defendants have any evidence that the technology they used to produce their response (and avail themselves of their First Amendment rights) was available in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted?

 

I mean, that's their criteria....right?

Edited by springfield shooter
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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