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

[mab22]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:02 PM, Upholder said:

 

I beg to differ.  They are crazy enough to try:

 

from https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff#:~:text=Since the Judiciary Act of,%2C climate%2C and labor organizations.

 

Good luck getting it past the house. Some Dems like Manchin don’t want to go over the cliff, so it may be a hard sell. Plus they kinda lost cinema, and then there is the old bat that doesn’t remember she was out on leave who’s name is escaping me at the moment.

[MrTriple]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:02 PM, Upholder said:

 

I beg to differ.  They are crazy enough to try:

 

from https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff#:~:text=Since the Judiciary Act of,%2C climate%2C and labor organizations.

 

Bear in mind that this bill was introduced by senators and congressmen sitting in safe blue seats. But would a Sherrod Brown or a Joe Manchin or a Krysten Sinema risk their seats over something like that? No.

[springfield shooter]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:09 PM, MrTriple said:

Bear in mind that this bill was introduced by senators and congressmen sitting in safe blue seats. But would a Sherrod Brown or a Joe Manchin or a Krysten Sinema risk their seats over something like that? No.

 

Pretty sure you can add Jon Tester (D-MT) to that list. In 2020, Trump won MT by over 16 pts.

Edited May 17, 2023 at 10:25 PM by springfield shooter

[Flynn]

On 5/17/2023 at 3:12 PM, MrTriple said:

The last thing the gun control movement wants is for the high court to hear an AWB case. If that means sacrificing Illinois' ban for the sake of preserving the bans in California, New York, and elsewhere, then so be it.

 

There are lawsuits in several circuits, if Illinois rules against the AWB, and the other courts rule for it, the SCOTUS has the circuit split they generally desire to have when they take up a topic when the plaintiffs appeal.

 

IMO this is going to the SCOTUS no matter what, it's just a matter of what state's case is the one the SCOTUS picks up on appeal and how soon.  The 7th very well might not want to be the one white gloved this time around, I suspect it's th e 9ths turn 🤣

[MrTriple]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:36 PM, Flynn said:

 

There are lawsuits in several circuits, if Illinois rules against the AWB, and the other courts rule for it, the SCOTUS has the circuit split they generally desire to have when they take up a topic when the plaintiffs appeal.

 

IMO this is going to the SCOTUS no matter what, it's just a matter of what state's case is the one the SCOTUS picks up on appeal and how soon.  The 7th very well might not want to be the one white gloved this time around, I suspect it's th e 9ths turn 🤣

I've been thinking the same for awhile now, that the Seventh Circuit could rule against Illinois and the case stops right then and there. And I still have my doubts that the state would wanna appeal that. Why would they wanna take the blame for getting every AWB nationwide overturned?

 

Also re: Pritzker, even if he personally wants to appeal, I'd think the gun control movement would pressure him not to.

Edited May 18, 2023 at 03:06 AM by MrTriple

[JTHunter]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:03 PM, ealcala31 said:

SCOTUS gives us Bruen, which is supposed to be an expansion of 2A Rights for ALL Americans, and us Illinoisans get PICA. The 7th Circuit COA already tipped their hand already, so unless SCOTUS takes this Cert, we've lost 90% of our 2A rights. For US 2A guys/gals who truly do want 2A rights, leaving the Prairie State has to be seriously considered...

 

G.T.F.O.O.I.

[WhiskeyRebel]

Can you defeatist losers stop telling everyone to cut and run while ceding more and more ground to leftists? Soon there’s going to be no more places left to run to.

[John Q Public]

Might want to dial it down a little there Whiskey....

 

 

I do wish we would do less strategy planning for the other side though... we seem to be doing the leg work for them of when to appeal and not etc.

 

Just sayn

 

JQ

[2A4Cook]

On 5/18/2023 at 1:32 PM, WhiskeyRebel said:

Can you defeatist losers stop telling everyone to cut and run while ceding more and more ground to leftists? Soon there’s going to be no more places left to run to.

What is your suggestion, oh winning fighting hardass?

[John Q Public]

Something like this perhaps?  

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

 

[Flynn]

On 5/18/2023 at 1:32 PM, WhiskeyRebel said:

Can you defeatist losers stop telling everyone to cut and run while ceding more and more ground to leftists? Soon there’s going to be no more places left to run to.

 

You might want to consider that it's sometimes much wiser to pick the battles you can win over lost causes.

 

This is especially true for someone whose livelihood is being threated and cut off and they need to put food on their table.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think staying and fighting if you can and are able should be done, but sometimes the smart move is to toss in the towel and regroup for a battle you can win vs punching a brick wall.

[TargetCollector]

On 5/18/2023 at 4:33 PM, Flynn said:

 

You might want to consider that it's sometimes much wiser to pick the battles you can win over lost causes.

 

This is especially true for someone whose livelihood is being threated and cut off and they need to put food on their table.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think staying and fighting if you can and are able should be done, but sometimes the smart move is to toss in the towel and regroup for a battle you can win vs punching a brick wall.

 

I agree, fleeing the state is not a realistic option for most and only leaves the rest of us worse off, but I'm not going to begrudge the people who have no alternative than to carry-on the fight elsewhere.  

 

To that end, that's also why I keep reiterating that those of us who stay need to recognize where to put our efforts and what we can be accomplishing in different areas.  It's easy to throw a few dollars at a couple of these cases and cheer them on from afar.  It's also easy to fill out a couple of witness slips and come here to complain when bad bills inevitably become bad law. 

I'd wager that most folks on here are doing only the above and then sitting back and hoping the courts save us due to what appears to me to be an over-abundance of optimism.  I recognize the concerns about putting deeper strategy and coordination efforts in a public forum, and I recognize the concerns many have had about "collaborating with the enemy" in attempting to shape some of this legislation, but there has to be something more we can be doing as a community than just screaming into our own echo chamber about the things we don't like.    

 

I swear, though, there are times when it feels like gun owners on forums like this would almost prefer the status quo in Illinois to a hypothetical in which the antis suddenly see the light and give us everything we ever wanted.  I really think there are folks here more in it for the sporting aspect of the fight than to protect our rights.

[Euler]

On May 19, plaintiff Barnett filed for summary judgement in district court to declare parts of the Act unconstitutional for vagueness. In particular, there is no definition of what exactly "AR type" and "AK type" mean.

[Flynn]

On 5/20/2023 at 9:49 PM, Euler said:

On May 19, plaintiff Barnett filed for summary judgement in district court to declare parts of the Act unconstitutional for vagueness. In particular, there is no definition of what exactly "AR type" and "AK type" mean.

 

That is actually an interesting argument, what is the base line and what degree of variance and design changes would a new or different rifle design need to no longer be considered an AR or AK type under the law?  This would not really lead to the victory we desire as it still allows a ban on rifles in common use, but it shows how absurd their classificaiton of scary rifles is and how they simply cast a huge net without clarification.

[mab22]

On 5/21/2023 at 12:27 AM, Flynn said:

 

That is actually an interesting argument, what is the base line and what degree of variance and design changes would a new or different rifle design need to no longer be considered an AR or AK type under the law?  This would not really lead to the victory we desire as it still allows a ban on rifles in common use, but it shows how absurd their classificaiton of scary rifles is and how they simply cast a huge net without clarification.

I wonder if a Troy “other” is allowed by the comrades in the Illinois congress?

 

[2A4Cook]

Opening for DemoAutocrats:  They would not be "in common use," and therefore they'd quickly amend to add them.

[davel501]

Been tried already in California. They even had patches made up. 

 

[Mitch]

Seems like things have quieted down with this case. When is the next date to watch for any updates?

[Euler]

On 5/26/2023 at 3:42 PM, Mitch said:

Seems like things have quieted down with this case. When is the next date to watch for any updates?

 

Nothing happens in the appellate court until June 29. There's a motion for summary judgment pending in the district court that could see some action before the end of June.

[2A4Cook]

Summary judgment is relatively rare; even more so prior to discovery being completed.  Admittedly, I don't know the disco status of the district court case.

[Euler]

Summary judgments are based on law and undisputed facts, so discovery shouldn't play too big a role. I suppose there could be some currently unknown relevant facts which will later not be disputed when known, but that seems unlikely to me.

 

Many civil rights claims are determined by summary judgment, even when a jury trial was originally requested, because there are no relevant disputed facts.

 

Whether Barnett gets one, in whole or in part, we'll see.

[Upholder]

 

[Euler]

On 5/20/2023 at 10:49 PM, Euler said:

On May 19, plaintiff Barnett filed for summary judgement in district court to declare parts of the Act unconstitutional for vagueness. In particular, there is no definition of what exactly "AR type" and "AK type" mean.

 

It was actually plaintiff Langley. Anyway ...

 

On June 2, defendants moved to stay consideration of (or possibly deny without prejudice) the summary judgment on several bases:

1. Barnett, Harell, Langley, and FFL-IL were consolidated to consider their common claims jointly. Consideration of individually specific claims should wait until after consideration of the common claims is complete.
2. None of the other parties have requested consideration of their individually specific claims.
3. The consolidated Barnett case is currently under appeal at the circuit level for a preliminary injunction. Any further consideration of claims at the district level should wait until the circuit consideration of the preliminary injunction is complete.
4. There has been no discovery. There should be discovery.

The defendants listed them as 12 reasons, not 4, but I summarized.

 

IMO reasons 1 & 2 make sense, 3 & 4 not so much. Nevertheless, the parties could/should absolutely proceed into discovery without waiting for anything to happen at the circuit level.

[2A4Cook]

On 5/26/2023 at 6:01 PM, Euler said:

Summary judgments are based on law and undisputed facts, so discovery shouldn't play too big a role. I suppose there could be some currently unknown relevant facts which will later not be disputed when known, but that seems unlikely to me.

 

Many civil rights claims are determined by summary judgment, even when a jury trial was originally requested, because there are no relevant disputed facts.

 

Whether Barnett gets one, in whole or in part, we'll see.

You always respond to a motion for S/J with a contention that discovery should be completed.  Prior to that, there are generally few or no "undisputed" facts.  Defendants deny everything in their answer.  Constitutional and/or legislation issues are more likely to get an S/J without discovery if, for example, an act is unconstitutional on its face.

[Euler]

On 6/3/2023 at 1:40 PM, Euler said:

...

On June 2, defendants moved to stay consideration of (or possibly deny without prejudice) the summary judgment ...

 

On June 5, the judge ordered plaintiffs to respond to the motion by June 12.

[Tvandermyde]

 

 

My quick thoughts on the issues presented by Cook, chicago and the state in their filings

[yurimodin]

On 6/8/2023 at 10:25 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

 

My quick thoughts on the issues presented by Cook, chicago and the state in their filings

Great video again Todd. Don't worry about cranking out videos unless its needed. Its ALOT better than getting 2A video spammed like some channels do.

[davel501]

On 6/8/2023 at 10:25 AM, Tvandermyde said:

 

 

My quick thoughts on the issues presented by Cook, chicago and the state in their filings

 

It almost feels like the response to all those pages should be a single page re-iterating the standard and the fact that despite all pages the government has filed none of them address the standard and are, frankly, disrespectful to the court.

 

[yurimodin]

On 6/8/2023 at 1:55 PM, davel501 said:

 

It almost feels like the response to all those pages should be a single page re-iterating the standard and the fact that despite all pages the government has filed none of them address the standard and are, frankly, disrespectful to the court.

 

just send them this

[mab22]

On 6/8/2023 at 1:55 PM, davel501 said:

 

It almost feels like the response to all those pages should be a single page re-iterating the standard and the fact that despite all pages the government has filed none of them address the standard and are, frankly, disrespectful to the court.

 

Disrespectful to the tax payers as well, we are paying them to write countless hours of dribble, and they are billing the state, county, city by the hour?
Maybe they should be investigated for fraud?