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

[davel501]

On 6/8/2023 at 6:14 PM, mab22 said:

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?

 

My understanding was this was all funded by Puti...err...Blootin...err...Bloomberg. Tyrannical oligarchs will tyrannize.

[Euler]

On 6/8/2023 at 7:52 PM, davel501 said:

My understanding was this was all funded by Puti...err...Blootin...err...Bloomberg. Tyrannical oligarchs will tyrannize.

 

Bevis (Naperville) and Goldman (Highland Park) are pro bono, because the cities don't have big budgets. Raoul and Pritzker have the state coffers at their backs.

[davel501]

On 6/8/2023 at 7:48 PM, Euler said:

 

Bevis (Naperville) and Goldman (Highland Park) are pro bono, because the cities don't have big budgets. Raoul and Pritzker have the state coffers at their backs.

 

I had read somewhere that they were covering the costs for the semiautomatic bans in IL and WA. 

[steveTA84]

Perkins Coie is covering the costs here in IL. This was uncovered even before the ban hit the legislature. Here’s Steve Elrod (Highland Park) and the Naperville city attorney talking about the strategy (backed by Perkins Coie). Also note that they were planning legislation, without public knowledge, in which they knew it would be challenged. Pure bad faith (and they were planning on ramming this through as a pouting fest due to Bruen, as it was brewing prior to the 7/4 shooting)

this (FOIA) plan, that they went with, was exposed in August of last year…..

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/dirty-tricks-at-play-in-naperville-regarding-their-proposed-awb

Edited June 9, 2023 at 03:47 PM by steveTA84

[Euler]

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

It was actually plaintiff Langley. Anyway ...

 

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

 

On 6/5/2023 at 6:07 PM, Euler said:

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

 

... which they did on June 12.

[lilguy]

So where does it leave this case now?

[Molly B.]

Oral arguments on June 29.

[Euler]

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

It was actually plaintiff Langley. Anyway ...

 

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

 

On 6/5/2023 at 6:07 PM, Euler said:

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

 

On 6/13/2023 at 5:29 PM, Euler said:

... which they did on June 12.

 

Langley's response summarized (since it's available on CourtListener):

1. CA7 has jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction, which is based on 2A claims, but the district court retains jurisdiction over the remainder of the case, which includes vagueness and 5A claims, for which Langley is pressing a summary judgment.
2. The defendants' argument that summary judgment should be stayed based on needed discovery is itself vague. Defendants have not specified what they need to discover nor should they need any for the vagueness and 5A claims. All the facts are already known. Either the defendants have a definition for the vague terms or they don't.
3. None of the plaintiffs requested consolidation. Each of the plaintiffs has unique claims. There is no reason to stay judgment on the unique claims.
4. Defendants are the ones who requested that non-2A claims be postponed until after 2A claims. The district court has already ruled on the 2A claims [i.e., the preliminary injunction which got stayed].
5. Plaintiffs have no objection to staying summary judgment until after the defendants conduct whatever discovery they want as long as they stipulate to staying enforcement until then.

Edited June 15, 2023 at 03:07 AM by Euler

[Upholder]

The Appellees' Response Brief that was filed on 6/19 is now available:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca7.48904/gov.uscourts.ca7.48904.56.0_2.pdf

[EdDinIL]

On 6/14/2023 at 8:52 AM, Molly B. said:

Oral arguments on June 29.

With the arguments on the 29th, is there any known timeline after that?  Will we expect some kind of ruling within a day or week, or will this drag on until August or September before we know anything?  

 

If that's somewhere in the thread, sorry for not seeing it!

[Euler]

On 6/21/2023 at 12:39 PM, EdDinIL said:

With the arguments on the 29th, is there any known timeline after that?  Will we expect some kind of ruling within a day or week, or will this drag on until August or September before we know anything?  

 

If that's somewhere in the thread, sorry for not seeing it!

 

I've posted elsewhere, maybe in this thread, but there are statistics on that. 9 months from arguments is the average. They could move faster than that, especially since the drop-dead date for not-registration is January 1.

[hceuterpe]

On 6/21/2023 at 3:53 PM, Euler said:

 

I've posted elsewhere, maybe in this thread, but there are statistics on that. 9 months from arguments is the average. They could move faster than that, especially since the drop-dead date for not-registration is January 1.

 

Isn't this merely about granting an injunction or not?  Would imagine that should go faster.

[Euler]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:11 PM, hceuterpe said:

Isn't this merely about granting an injunction or not?  Would imagine that should go faster.

 

There's no standard, but we can hope, especially because the state would throw a hissy fit if the trial started before the appeals court ruled on a preliminary injunction.

[Tvandermyde]

When Eastbrook wrote for the Mcdonald Panel it was two weeks. Atkinson was just over 7 months, some contend it was Wood's dissent that held things up and Sykes may have given in to Scudder to keep him on board in some respects. A  12 page opinion is not that difficult to write for a remand

[powderhead]

When this all began, I guessed it would be three years before this was completely resolved.  We shall see.  

[Tvandermyde]

How it goes depends on a couple things, 1. how the panel looks. 2. how detailed they want to get, look to Woods, dissent in Atkinson. 3. does bianchi come out and what does it say. 

 

I would be happy to get a decision by say august. If we win, are they going to go enbanc, in which might prevail to not rehear the case. then its up to scotus if we loose we are not going enbanc we will appeal to SCOTUS and i would like to loose faster if that is the case

[mab22]

So what I am hearing is that the appellate could drag it's arse to October to make up what they feel like, then our side would have to appeal to the SCOTUS for the injunction? Then let the case actually get underway?

 

[gunuser17]

While it may make financial sense to appeal a stay of an preliminary injunction right now, it  probably makes no financial sense to go further up the chain to the USSC.  You  should have the district court trial finished with a final verdict and hopefully a permanent injunction before you would ever get a decision from the supreme court.  And that's a big assumption that the Supremes would even be willing to get in the spat over a stay of a preliminary injunction.  To me, it makes far more sense to save your money for the fight after the actual case is decided.

[Tvandermyde]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:17 PM, gunuser17 said:

While it may make financial sense to appeal a stay of an preliminary injunction right now, it  probably makes no financial sense to go further up the chain to the USSC.  You  should have the district court trial finished with a final verdict and hopefully a permanent injunction before you would ever get a decision from the supreme court.  And that's a big assumption that the Supremes would even be willing to get in the spat over a stay of a preliminary injunction.  To me, it makes far more sense to save your money for the fight after the actual case is decided.

if memory serves me correct, several of the other cases were done on interlockitory appeals

[gunuser17]

Perhaps so  but this is a different world now and I believe that you can expect the state to fight to the death on every case now given the governor's presidential aspirations and the need to compete with Governor Newsom for publicity.  I am afraid that very deep pockets are going to be needed for several years to keep up this fight and hard financial decisions will need to be made along the way.  I also expect democrats to stretch these fights as long as possible on the hope of replacing one or more Justices.

Edited June 23, 2023 at 09:09 PM by gunuser17

[lilguy]

On 6/23/2023 at 4:08 PM, gunuser17 said:

Perhaps so  but this is a different world now and I believe that you can expect the state to fight to the death on every case now given the governor's presidential aspirations and the need to compete with Governor Newsom for publicity.  I am afraid that very deep pockets are going to be needed for several years to keep up this fight and hard financial decisions will need to be made along the way.  I also expect democrats to stretch these fights as long as possible on the hope of replacing one or more Justices.

This.^
If any of this was blatantly unconstitutional we would get relief.

If the state tried to control republican access to voting we would not be yoyoing through the courts. If FOID is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t still need one 52 years later. Some cities are shooting galleries and just maybe the courts aren’t real eager to unleash the public’s desire to purchase millions more firearms.

The Second Amendment may not be a second tier right according to SCOTUS, but that appears to be alot of lip service being paid, so far.

 

[Yeti]

I am still holding out some hope that Justice Barrett’s signal that she’s watching the Naperville case means that the right thing will happen in the end.  I am not assuming that it will happen quickly enough to see relief this year and am looking at out-of-state storage arrangements.

[Tip]

Unfortunately I don’t expect USSC to get involved in the injunction/stay process intending, instead, to let the actual trials play out.
The state hasn’t even really begun the foot dragging/delay process the are so good at yet, expect it to come out in full force once the trials start.
I don’t expect ANY trial resolutions until AFTER the coming Presidential election cycle. The state likely hoping/believing that the outcome of that will resolve things in their favor.

There’s still hope of getting an injunction against enforcement out of the circuit courts that will stand but that remains to be seen.

[ragsbo]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:34 AM, Tip said:

Unfortunately I don’t expect USSC to get involved in the injunction/stay process intending, instead, to let the actual trials play out.
The state hasn’t even really begun the foot dragging/delay process the are so good at yet, expect it to come out in full force once the trials start.
I don’t expect ANY trial resolutions until AFTER the coming Presidential election cycle. The state likely hoping/believing that the outcome of that will resolve things in their favor.

There’s still hope of getting an injunction against enforcement out of the circuit courts that will stand but that remains to be seen.

And all the time these maggots get away with screwing my out of my Constitutional rights and not facing consequences

[davel501]

On 6/24/2023 at 9:41 AM, lilguy said:

This.^
If any of this was blatantly unconstitutional we would get relief.

If the state tried to control republican access to voting we would not be yoyoing through the courts. If FOID is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t still need one 52 years later. Some cities are shooting galleries and just maybe the courts aren’t real eager to unleash the public’s desire to purchase millions more firearms.

The Second Amendment may not be a second tier right according to SCOTUS, but that appears to be alot of lip service being paid, so far.

 

 

How long did it take women to get to vote? 

[Euler]

On 6/24/2023 at 1:53 PM, davel501 said:

How long did it take women to get to vote? 

 

In the US, sufferage started to gather steam in the 1840s. The 19th Amendment was passed in the 1920s.

 

Although the emphasis of sufferage (and the 19th Amendment) was the right to vote, it was about all civil liberties.

 

Historically, support for RKBA has been fairly constant over time and generally less than the majority, which is why the founding fathers thought it required Constitutional protection. No majority should be able to deprive the minority of civil liberties. But the point is that sufferage gained popularity over time. RKBA varies a bit, but stays about the same. Whether the analogy is entirely valid or not, it's still a long game.

[davel501]

On 6/24/2023 at 3:41 PM, Euler said:

 

In the US, sufferage started to gather steam in the 1840s. The 19th Amendment was passed in the 1920s.

 

Although the emphasis of sufferage (and the 19th Amendment) was the right to vote, it was about all civil liberties.

 

Historically, support for RKBA has been fairly constant over time and generally less than the majority, which is why the founding fathers thought it required Constitutional protection. No majority should be able to deprive the minority of civil liberties. But the point is that sufferage gained popularity over time. RKBA varies a bit, but stays about the same. Whether the analogy is entirely valid or not, it's still a long game.

 

Point is it can be a long game. Sometimes we do things like plant trees for future generations to enjoy and then just hope they are smart enough not to chop them down.

[djmarkla]

On 6/24/2023 at 4:39 PM, davel501 said:

 

Point is it can be a long game. Sometimes we do things like plant trees for future generations to enjoy and then just hope they are smart enough not to chop them down.

[Bitter Clinger]

Some of us just want to be left alone.

We're sick of the gov sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

 

Why can't I just go to the range and have a nice day without wondering if what I'm bringing is "allowed" in this state?

 

[springfield shooter]

On 6/26/2023 at 8:47 AM, Bitter Clinger said:

Some of us just want to be left alone.

We're sick of the gov sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

 

Why can't I just go to the range and have a nice day without wondering if what I'm bringing is "allowed" in this state?

 

 

Why? Because IL is not about responsible legal firearms ownership. And it is certainly not about the Constitution of The United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

And apparently, that appears to go for some Federal judges too.