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

[Hatchet]

Wonder if Easterbrook is padding his portfolio to be appointed to the supreme in coming years if he's allowed to...

[CplHunter]

On 5/10/2023 at 12:03 PM, Hatchet said:

Wonder if Easterbrook is padding his portfolio to be appointed to the supreme in coming years if he's allowed to...

He's 74, ain't happening.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:29 AM, ealcala31 said:

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...

 

I'll argue these cases were politics from the start.  To many people on our side expect the game to be played fairly.  The Dems have tried all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways. They tried to judge shop twice now?  2A friendly Judge Gilbert has to recuse because he sits as a Trustee for a state university. Yet 2 state supreme court judges don't even consider it, even after blatant conflicts, and they ignore the state court rules for judges.   And now the state gets to jump the line and get a stay from the circuit court and then the state draws an overtly hostile 2A judge.   

 

I look at Maag's brief as someone on our side making some noise, waving their arms around, and proclaiming HEY, we're being screwed over here!  

[davel501]

On 5/10/2023 at 1:02 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'll argue these cases were politics from the start.  To many people on our side expect the game to be played fairly.  The Dems have tried all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways. They tried to judge shop twice now?  2A friendly Judge Gilbert has to recuse because he sits as a Trustee for a state university. Yet 2 state supreme court judges don't even consider it, even after blatant conflicts, and they ignore the state court rules for judges.   And now the state gets to jump the line and get a stay from the circuit court and then the state draws an overtly hostile 2A judge.   

 

I look at Maag's brief as someone on our side making some noise, waving their arms around, and proclaiming HEY, we're being screwed over here!  

 

Could be that they split the responses amongst the team so one could take on the role of the enforcer too.

[mab22]

On 5/10/2023 at 1:02 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'll argue these cases were politics from the start.  To many people on our side expect the game to be played fairly.  The Dems have tried all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways. They tried to judge shop twice now?  2A friendly Judge Gilbert has to recuse because he sits as a Trustee for a state university. Yet 2 state supreme court judges don't even consider it, even after blatant conflicts, and they ignore the state court rules for judges.   And now the state gets to jump the line and get a stay from the circuit court and then the state draws an overtly hostile 2A judge.   

 

I look at Maag's brief as someone on our side making some noise, waving their arms around, and proclaiming HEY, we're being screwed over here!  

Let's fix that one sentence.

The Dems have tried used all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways.

 

 

[ealcala31]

On 5/10/2023 at 1:02 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'll argue these cases were politics from the start.  To many people on our side expect the game to be played fairly.  The Dems have tried all kinds of lawfare tricks to turn this case sideways. They tried to judge shop twice now?  2A friendly Judge Gilbert has to recuse because he sits as a Trustee for a state university. Yet 2 state supreme court judges don't even consider it, even after blatant conflicts, and they ignore the state court rules for judges.   And now the state gets to jump the line and get a stay from the circuit court and then the state draws an overtly hostile 2A judge.   

 

I look at Maag's brief as someone on our side making some noise, waving their arms around, and proclaiming HEY, we're being screwed over here!  

💯

[Tango7]

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

Pritzker and ISP are building an unnecessary tinder box here.

 

Oh, it's necessary. Pritzker and the appointed hoplophobes in ISP admin are hoping for an untoward response, so they can clutch their pearls and scream "WVILGUN OWNERS! TOLD U SO!" and push even more restrictions.

Edited May 10, 2023 at 09:20 PM by Tango7

[RECarry]

Consider the racist, elitist aspect of Bob Morgan's Gun and Magazine Bans. How dare gang violence or whack job violence strike Highland Park and the North Shore's League of Women Voters? Those communities are supposed to be Gun Free Zone enclaves (a racist and elitist word of exclusion). Try using that word in a real estate listing and you'll be censured.  Point being, gang violence in the hood is of no consequence. Just don't let it be known that mental illness occurs in white suburbs.

[Mitch]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:54 PM, RECarry said:

Consider the racist, elitist aspect of Bob Morgan's Gun and Magazine Bans. How dare gang violence or whack job violence strike Highland Park and the North Shore's League of Women Voters? Those communities are supposed to be Gun Free Zone enclaves (a racist and elitist word of exclusion). Try using that word in a real estate listing and you'll be censured.  Point being, gang violence in the hood is of no consequence. Just don't let it be known that mental illness occurs in white suburbs.

Right?  I’ve thought that from the beginning. 50+ homicides in a summer weekend?  As long as it’s in black neighborhoods nobody cares. One shooting in Highland Park and there’s a statewide ban?

 

Tell me more about my implicit bias. Please. Because that sounds downright racist to me. 

[Monty80]

Wasn't there a carve out in this pile of dung for FFLs?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:04 PM, Mitch said:

One shooting in Highland Park and there’s a statewide ban?

 

 

The north shore is where the huge campaign donor money comes from.  The suburban karens got scared and threatened to stop funding campaigns. 

 

Even then.. they didn't have the votes for a period of time.  Enforcement for the gang neighborhoods got removed. Carve-outs written in. 

 

  

 

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:39 PM, Monty80 said:

Wasn't there a carve out in this pile of dung for FFLs?

 

IIRC, they can sell stuff to out of state customers and MIL/LEO.   BUT.. we have FFL members here who have stated they were informed they can't replenish their inventory of banned guns. They can only sell what they have in current inventory and then that is it. 

 

 

[Monty80]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:59 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

IIRC, they can sell stuff to out of state customers and MIL/LEO.   BUT.. we have FFL members here who have stated they were informed they can't replenish their inventory of banned guns. They can only sell what they have in current inventory and then that is it. 

 

 

 

I'm a new FFL and tried to order some for a few out of state customers and got told to pound sand. I guess I was wrong. Talk about garbage. 

[lilguy]

Thanks Todd.

 

 

 

Just watched PBS Frontline. 2 hour in depth hatchet job on Justice Thomas and his wife.

The left is going down hard on trying to destroy the conservative 

SCOTUS. Gotta get our work done before things change.

Edited May 11, 2023 at 12:59 AM by lilguy

[Euler]

On 5/10/2023 at 6:54 AM, lilguy said:

So where are we now?

 

With Barnett, CA7 issued an emergency stay on a preliminary injunction. CA7 could lift the stay almost immediately, although it could also make the stay on the preliminary injunction permanent. The case itself is still in the sourthern district, so McGlynn could issue a permanent injunction, although CA7 could step on that, too.

 

On 5/10/2023 at 12:31 PM, imagineallthekarma 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?

 

Solitary judges can rule on motions. That's how Barrett alone is hearing the Bevis appeal on a preliminary injunction at the Supreme Court. Easterbrook probably will rule on his own stay.

[davel501]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:41 PM, Euler said:

 

With Barnett, CA7 issued an emergency stay on a preliminary injunction. CA7 could lift the stay almost immediately, although it could also make the stay on the preliminary injunction permanent. The case itself is still in the sourthern district, so McGlynn could issue a permanent injunction, although CA7 could step on that, too.

 

 

Solitary judges can rule on motions. That's how Barrett alone is hearing the Bevis appeal on a preliminary injunction at the Supreme Court. Easterbrook probably will rule on his own stay.

 

Isn't the court on recess until 5/17? My understanding was Easterbrook was the "on-call" judge.

[Euler]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:57 PM, davel501 said:

Isn't the court on recess until 5/17? My understanding was Easterbrook was the "on-call" judge.

 

According to their calendar, week 4 of the 2023 session ends April 31. Week 5 starts May 15. That just means they're not hearing arguments. It's not like they all go fishing.

[davel501]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:24 PM, Euler said:

 

According to their calendar, week 4 of the 2023 session ends April 31. Week 5 starts May 15. That just means they're not hearing arguments. It's not like they all go fishing.

 

I think it was one of Todd's videos that made it sound like they were away. Not sure if that means working from home or fishing but it's surprising we haven't heard from anyone else given Easterbrook's behavior.

[gunuser17]

Appellate courts hear arguments before 3 judge panels usually the first week or two of the month I believe.  The Supreme Court works the same way except the oral arguments are before the entire court on scheduled oral argument days.  The Supreme Court takes a couple of months off during the summer but the court staff continues working and processing appeals and emergency motions will come up there from time to time.  The rest of the time during the month in other appellate courts is spent working on writing decisions.  They are still there working, just no oral arguments during the rest of the month.

Edited May 11, 2023 at 03:33 AM by gunuser17

[Tvandermyde]

 

[lilguy]

2024?😳

[yurimodin]

On 5/12/2023 at 12:55 PM, lilguy said:

2024?😳

yup courts will move at lighting speed to screw us and then take decades to get around to helping.

[MrTriple]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:37 PM, yurimodin said:

yup courts will move at lighting speed to screw us and then take decades to get around to helping.

We're overreacting a little bit.

 

Take those carry cases out of New York. That hearing by the Second Circuit was scheduled within 45 days, which is shockingly fast for the federal courts. We got the initial injunction from McGlynn within months of the AWB passing. We may get word from SCOTUS by Monday morning about the appeal of the injunction. And once the Circuit Court has a chance to address Easterbrook's stay, there's the possibility of merits arguments and even a potential ruling from the district courts before the end of summer, particularly if McGlynn is allowed to get Barnett moving again (he likely wants merits arguments scheduled ASAP).

 

And then there's the numerous 18-20 handgun ban cases, the challenges to various aspects of 922, etc., to say nothing of Bianchi and the various cases before Benitez.

 

Things seem to be moving far faster than we realize.

[yurimodin]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:47 PM, MrTriple said:

We may get word from SCOTUS by Monday morning about the appeal of the injunction.

riiiiiiiiight.......I'm not holding my breath. I really would like to see the stay stayed so we don't have to worry about this registration BS.

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:50 PM, yurimodin said:

riiiiiiiiight.......I'm not holding my breath. I really would like to see the stay stayed so we don't have to worry about this registration BS.

The registration BS might just be the thing that will push this into highgear. 

[MrTriple]

On 5/12/2023 at 1:50 PM, yurimodin said:

riiiiiiiiight.......I'm not holding my breath. I really would like to see the stay stayed so we don't have to worry about this registration BS.

The most likely outcome (statistically) is that SCOTUS refuses to get involved this early in the life of the case (as both Todd and Mark Smith have noted) with Alito issuing a statement ala New York saying, "quit playing games, we're watching you".

 

I get everybody's frustration, but right now the focus needs to be on getting a hearing scheduled on the merits. That can't happen until this injunction mess is settled and the district courts get back to work.

 

Also remember that the Seventh Circuit has an opportunity to review Easterbrook's stay, and any warning from SCOTUS could very well influence their thinking, especially if Alito/Thomas explicitly condemn Friedman as bad law. So that's another thing to consider.

 

And a permanent injunction from, say, McGlynn would also prove incredibly helpful, even if that gets stayed on appeal.

[John Q Public]

I think a major part of the frustration is that they will just write another crap law even if we win these. We need a way to hold them accountable for these blatantly UnCon laws.

 

JQ

 

[MrTriple]

Tried posting a link, let me try again.

Edited May 12, 2023 at 07:46 PM by MrTriple

[MrTriple]

 

 

[MrTriple]

 

I'm not sure how to read this order from the court. Are they consolidating for the purpose of merits arguments?

 

Regardless, a part of me wonders if this is actually a good thing. At the very least (assuming the June hearing is on the merits) then that means a faster resolution than what we'd be getting under normal circumstances.

 

Edited May 12, 2023 at 07:50 PM by MrTriple