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

[Euler]

On 5/9/2023 at 9:36 PM, JTHunter said:

It was SC Justice Amy Barrett that wanted a reply from Naperville.

 

In Bevis v Naperville, yes, regarding the denial of a preliminary injunction at the district and appellate levels. Both Naperville and Illinois responded.

[JTHunter]

Thanks Euler.  I figured you might have more up to date info.

[Upholder]

On 5/9/2023 at 8:36 PM, JTHunter said:

 

It was SC Justice Amy Barrett that wanted a reply from Naperville.

Easterbrook also wanted responses from the plaintiffs by today, and he received them.

[Upholder]

On 5/9/2023 at 7:45 PM, tricolor said:

Yes, they gave easterbrook a way out that allows him to save face.  I'm doubting that easterbrook takes Plaintiff’s offer, but it is a nice addition to the brief nonetheless! 

 

The response from Maag is much more pointed:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1683687924/Barnett_v_Raoul_Langley_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Stay.pdf

[davel501]

On 5/9/2023 at 11:11 PM, Upholder said:

 

The response from Maag is much more pointed:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1683687924/Barnett_v_Raoul_Langley_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Stay.pdf

 

I wish I could watch Easterbrook read that. I picture it a lot like when that anchor dropped through the deck of Judge Smails' new sloop. 

[Euler]

On 5/10/2023 at 12:11 AM, Upholder said:

The response from Maag is much more pointed:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1683687924/Barnett_v_Raoul_Langley_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Stay.pdf

 

Added to CourtListener now, too.

 

EDIT: from the PACER dockets:

23 Filed Response ... by ... Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois ... [Entered: 05/09/2023 05:10 PM]

24 Filed Response by ... Caleb Barnett ... [Entered: 05/09/2023 06:14 PM]

25 Filed Response ... by ... Attorney Thomas G. Maag ... [Entered: 05/09/2023 09:26 PM]

 

Court clerks are working overtime today.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 at 05:06 AM by Euler

[TargetCollector]

As much as I love the venom and pith in the Maag brief as absolutely tearing down this kind of nonsense reasoning, I would somewhat doubt that Easterbrook will take too kindly to the tone when he goes to rule on this.  Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't take too long in slapping him back down on the Naperville case to really drive home how flawed his logic is, here.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/9/2023 at 11:11 PM, Upholder said:

 

The response from Maag is much more pointed:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1683687924/Barnett_v_Raoul_Langley_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Stay.pdf

 

"pointed"   Wow is that an understatement.  LOL...  

 

He starts pointing immediately.  He even states that Easterbrook's Friedman opinion was thrown into the  "dustbin of history" . 

[Euler]

On 5/10/2023 at 1:02 AM, TargetCollector said:

As much as I love the venom and pith in the Maag brief as absolutely tearing down this kind of nonsense reasoning, I would somewhat doubt that Easterbrook will take too kindly to the tone when he goes to rule on this.  Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't take too long in slapping him back down on the Naperville case to really drive home how flawed his logic is, here.

 

The denial of a preliminary injunction in Bevis at the appellate level was unsigned other than "by the court," which means it at least wasn't Easterbrook alone.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/10/2023 at 12:02 AM, TargetCollector said:

As much as I love the venom and pith in the Maag brief as absolutely tearing down this kind of nonsense reasoning, I would somewhat doubt that Easterbrook will take too kindly to the tone when he goes to rule on this.  Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't take too long in slapping him back down on the Naperville case to really drive home how flawed his logic is, here.

 

Maag knows that Easterbrook isn't going to rule in our favor.   This was written for the Supreme Court Justices to take notice of.  The lower courts are thumbing their noses and trying to rewrite NYSRPA v Bruen, citing bad law, and continuing to interest balance against Bruen's new test, and Maag really "points" (LOL) that out in his brief.  

 

Easterbrook doesn't want to accept his opinion is now bad law in light of Bruen.  He wanted to know why his Friedman opinion isn't relevant to the case, he got his answer.   

[lilguy]

So where are we now?

[spanishjames]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:54 AM, lilguy said:

So where are we now?

We are here:

 

[lilguy]

So everything is frozen in place again. Does the Judges ruling need a SCOTUS override, is that the next step?

 

[Tvandermyde]

On 5/9/2023 at 10:02 PM, TargetCollector said:

As much as I love the venom and pith in the Maag brief as absolutely tearing down this kind of nonsense reasoning, I would somewhat doubt that Easterbrook will take too kindly to the tone when he goes to rule on this.  Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't take too long in slapping him back down on the Naperville case to really drive home how flawed his logic is, here.

yea, but after 15 years post Heller I'm tired of the BS these pompous judges like Easterbrook and Posner put out and think we should be throwing some really sharp elbows

[ealcala31]

Thomas Maag's argument is awesome. After Judge Easterbrook reads it, DENIED. If any of these cases don't make it to SCOTUS, we lose. Politics has taken over this case...

[Tvandermyde]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:54 AM, lilguy said:

So where are we now?

 

[2A4Cook]

Easterbrook has appointed himself the Dictator of the Judicial Branch of the United States.  His ego knows no bounds.  He's extremely intelligent, knows exactly what the SCOTUS rulings say, but just doesn't care, as NOBODY tells HIM how to rule.  He's a legend in his own mind.

[Kingcreek]

Quote

 

On 5/10/2023 at 7:27 AM, Tvandermyde said:

yea, but after 15 years post Heller I'm tired of the BS these pompous judges like Easterbrook and Posner put out and think we should be throwing some really sharp elbows

We need a "like" button 

[Mitch]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:27 AM, Tvandermyde said:

yea, but after 15 years post Heller I'm tired of the BS these pompous judges like Easterbrook and Posner put out and think we should be throwing some really sharp elbows

Yeah. It’s not like he was going to change his mind, so why massage his ego?

 

If we aren’t going to win at this level, screw him and onto the next. 

[yurimodin]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:27 AM, Tvandermyde said:

yea, but after 15 years post Heller I'm tired of the BS these pompous judges like Easterbrook and Posner put out and think we should be throwing some really sharp elbows

Please never change Todd 

[TargetCollector]

If the audience for these briefs is truly SCOTUS, then I hope they do take notice with great haste and take action against these lower court judges who continue to ignore the very clear, controlling rulings.  I do wonder what can even be done if they continue to thumb their noses as they have been.  SCOTUS can not be expected to take up every single gun case from the 7th and the others for all time just to make things right, and this make-up of Justices won't last forever, either. 

[yurimodin]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:07 AM, TargetCollector said:

this make-up of Justices won't last forever, either. 

that's what the COMMUNISTS are counting on.

[Upholder]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:07 AM, TargetCollector said:

SCOTUS can not be expected to take up every single gun case from the 7th and the others for all time just to make things right, and this make-up of Justices won't last forever, either. 

 

There's not a ton of judicial effort involved in a Grant, Vacate, and Remand order....   they COULD, if need be, do that quite often.

[Molly B.]

MAJOR SCOTUS FILING: Powerful Arguments Against Assault Weapon/Magazine Bans Just Submitted....

 

[mauserme]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:07 AM, TargetCollector said:

If the audience for these briefs is truly SCOTUS, then I hope they do take notice with great haste and take action against these lower court judges who continue to ignore the very clear, controlling rulings.  I do wonder what can even be done if they continue to thumb their noses as they have been.  SCOTUS can not be expected to take up every single gun case from the 7th and the others for all time just to make things right, and this make-up of Justices won't last forever, either. 

On 5/10/2023 at 9:16 AM, yurimodin said:

that's what the COMMUNISTS are counting on.

 

 

That's true, but I take heart in the fact that Caetano was decided by a Supreme Court that included Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, and there was no dissent.  Precedent apparently meant something to that court.

 

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

 

[Elderberry]

On 5/10/2023 at 10:38 AM, mauserme said:

 

 

That's true, but I take heart in the fact that Caetano was decided by a Supreme Court that included Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, and there was no dissent.  Precedent apparently meant something to that court.

 

Good point Keith.  I think that court realized real power comes from solidarity when defending their own rulings, as in “I may not always agree with your position but when they attack one of us they attack each of us”….

 

 

 

 

[G214me]

On 5/10/2023 at 12:02 AM, TargetCollector said:

As much as I love the venom and pith in the Maag brief as absolutely tearing down this kind of nonsense reasoning, I would somewhat doubt that Easterbrook will take too kindly to the tone when he goes to rule on this.  Hopefully Justice Barrett doesn't take too long in slapping him back down on the Naperville case to really drive home how flawed his logic is, here.

He'll rule against us no matter what so if he doesn't like it let him go sit and cry like a 3 yr. old that can't get his way.

[MrTriple]

A couple of observations:

 

First, there's no guarantee that SCOTUS will need to get involved once we get to the merits. It's certainly possible that the Circuit Court does with Barnett what they did with Moore and decides to strike the restrictions down, with the state declining to appeal.

 

Second, we don't know what they'll do with the request to lift the stay of the injunction. Until we hear back from them, all we can do is speculate.

 

Third, I don't know what happens after this particular question is decided. Does it go back to the district courts? Do all the cases get consolidated? I couldn't say. So there's a lot more that we don't know and won't know until we get orders from the court.

[imagineallthekarma]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:41 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

Who rules on the motion to stay in the 7th circuit? Is it Easterbrook, or a 3 judge panel? If it’s the panel when do we know the composition?