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

[Tvandermyde]

here are some of the fileing the first two docs are what you'll want to read

illistrations.pdf responce.pdf exhibit 1 news.pdf Hargarten_dec.pdf Morgan.pdf Phil_andrew.pdf

[DaveIL]

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

If you’re drinking anything, put it down before reading this 

Jerry Miculek has entered the chat.. lol 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

I can't believe some of this.   IL went full retard.

 

IL is attempting to change Bruen's historic law test into a historic firearms test, and then combine it with Heller's common use. The defense said the plaintiffs have no evidence that semi-autos and large capacity mags were in common use back in 1791. 

 

The Bruen test doesn't apply to firearms in 1791 - it applies to the laws and regulations in 1791.   Heller's common use for lawful purposes isn't limited to 1791 either.

 

This is beyond absurd.  

 

Team Todd is going to flat out demolish this.  

I haven't gotten a good look at the illustrations. If they are as bad as the State's new bruen/heller combo, this AWB doesn't stand a chance in heck. 

 

 

 

[Tvandermyde]

my first take on the brief

 

 

[tiberius]

On 3/2/2023 at 8:56 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I can't believe some of this.   IL went full retard.

 

IL is attempting to change Bruen's historic law test into a historic firearms test, and then combine it with Heller's common use. The defense said the plaintiffs have no evidence that semi-autos and large capacity mags were in common use back in 1791. 

 

The Bruen test doesn't apply to firearms in 1791 - it applies to the laws and regulations in 1791.   Heller's common use for lawful purposes isn't limited to 1791 either.

 

This is beyond absurd.  

 

Team Todd is going to flat out demolish this.  

I haven't gotten a good look at the illustrations. If they are as bad as the State's new bruen/heller combo, this AWB doesn't stand a chance in heck. 

 

 

 

Their illustration of what a barrel shroud is seems to rule out normal rifle handguards and even rails. Doesn’t make it any better, of course. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

On 3/2/2023 at 9:27 PM, tiberius said:

Their illustration of what a barrel shroud is seems to rule out normal rifle handguards and even rails. Doesn’t make it any better, of course. 

It is full retard. 
 

I just skimmed a few sections and I couldn't believe what I was reading.  Its like they took Heller and Bruen on a trip into the Bizarro universe from the superman comics.  Claiming our side has to provide evidence that assault weapons and mags were in common use in 1791.  It is such an absurd revision of Bruen that I wasn't even sure I was reading things correctly until SteveTA84 also quoted it.

Then there is all of the interest balancing and heartstrings with the news reports. I think that is an attempt to bait our side into a callous response. The way to handle that is to agree that HP was a tragedy caused by a madman, but our 2A rights should not be limited due to the criminal acts of madmen, or we will end up with no 2A rights.  And that is why the US Supreme Court did away with interest balancing against the 2nd amendment as part of the Bruen decision.     

I haven't even looked at what they wrote in the historic regulations department.  

[steveTA84]

On 3/2/2023 at 8:56 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Team Todd is going to flat out demolish this.  

I’m mean, he called it w/the 10/22 LOL 

[Flynn]

We should honestly be excited that they have gone full retard and I mean full retard and are not even attempting to defend their actions under the clearly laid out precedent set in Heller/Bruen, but instead are babbling like a drunk flat-Earther wearing a tin foil hat, smoking a crack pipe and telling everyone that gravity doesn't exist while they lick their computer monitors.

[bmyers]

After looking at their list of exhibits, I made a new list of firearms that I want to go purchase. Thanks State of Illinois for giving me new purchase ideas once this law is struck down.

[bmyers]

Since they are making the argument that weapons of the 1700s are the only thing legal, then why did they outlaw calibers of .50 and greater?  

[cybermgk]

 

[Tvandermyde]

CapFax has a thread on the AG's filing, this should be fun today. . . 

 

 

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » AG Raoul files response in federal assault weapons ban case

[2A4Cook]

These hypocrites make me ill.  First of all, we all know citizens were to be armed with the standard weapon of a common soldier:  then, a musket, now, a fully automatic assault rifle.  Gimping citizens with AR 15s, you would think, is enough, but they want muskets!

 

Funny, I don't remember there being widespread abortion, gay marriage, or transitioned children in 1791, yet, to them, the Constitution is a "living" document, allowing Democrats to create "Constitutional rights" out of thin air.   But, when it suits them, they become not only strict constructionists, but strict constructionists magically transported back in time to 1791, bravely putting themselves in front of flying musket balls to fight for their right to disarm you so that you can't fight back against their attempts to establish a communist police state.

[Plinkermostly]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:55 AM, Flynn said:

We should honestly be excited that they have gone full retard and I mean full retard and are not even attempting to defend their actions under the clearly laid out precedent set in Heller/Bruen, but instead are babbling like a drunk flat-Earther wearing a tin foil hat, smoking a crack pipe and telling everyone that gravity doesn't exist while they lick their computer monitors.

 

I am thinking thread winner!  

[Plinkermostly]

Logically what it seems to say is: blue car -- good, red car -- looks fast -- it bad.

[Molly B.]

I notice in the illustrative list that the banned firearms are listed as 'Regulated' Assault Weapons, 'Regulated' Semiautomatic Rifles (by feature), 'regulated semi-automatic pistols, 'Regulated' Large Capacity Magazine.

 

No, not regulated, Kwame. Banned.

[Molly B.]

https://madisonrecord.com/stories/639987727-illinois-officials-file-opposition-to-motions-for-injunctive-relief-from-assault-weapons-ban-in-southern-district-court

 

Quote

 

excerpts:

 

The defendants argue that the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Bruen, does not give Illinois citizens the right to buy and sell semi-automatic weapons. ..

 

Assistant State’s Attorney Troy Owens responded on behalf of McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Henneally and Sheriff Robb Tadelman. 

The 18-page response filed by Owens supports the plaintiffs’ arguments for injunctive relief, claiming the U.S. Supreme Court ended the debate on the right to bear arms when it decided Bruen. ..

 

The sheriffs named in Harrel’s suit have all previously declared opposition to the weapons ban. 

Tadelman and Peters issued similar statements on Jan. 11 in opposition to HB 5471, calling it a “clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

“Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official for McHenry County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law abiding individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this Act,” they both wrote. 

Watson also expressed disappointment in the passage of HB 5471.

“As the chief law enforcement officer of St. Clair County, I am very concerned and disturbed by the ongoing and escalating violence that occurs throughout our state and country,” he wrote. “I am always supportive of new tools, techniques and laws that assist us in preventing and holding accountable those that wage efforts of harm and violence on others. However, I feel that this new law does not do that. I will continue to advocate on behalf of all St. [Clair] County residents and our dedicated law enforcement officers.”...

 

 

[TargetCollector]

On 3/2/2023 at 5:52 PM, steveTA84 said:

There it is!!!!!! One version of the 10/22 is covered by the 2A, but the other one isn’t 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

 

 

Absolutely hilarious that they basically copied the meme verbatim as their intent as some sort of "point of pride"!  It really shows just how far they're either out of touch or just so brazen that they're not even trying to pretend that their intent is to simply ban anything they feel they can get away with.  

[TargetCollector]

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

If you’re drinking anything, put it down before reading this 

 

I have to think this intentional twisting of the Bruen decision's wording that they're trying in all of these cases across the country is simply what they think will hold enough water with judges less friendly to us.  I think it's a national strategy to try to confuse the issue and tie this up long enough to get a different makeup of SCOTUS, though I suppose there could be some of these folks who really believe in the kool-aid so much that they've bought the idea that "presumed legal" really means "presumed illegal".

[Flynn]

It's a small point, but in the matter of law it's a point.  I do wonder why they left out the illustration of a feed strip?  Their excuse makes no sense, the Judge asked them for illustrations of what was banned, not for them to pick and choose and provide illustrations of only what they think is commercially available for a modern firearm.  Feed strips are very readily available for purchse in the gun collecting circles.  It's a pretty safe bet that some collector in Illinois has feed strips that would be outlawed, so for them to omit that, athough minor, is basically contempt.

 

 

[tiberius]

On 3/2/2023 at 9:59 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

It is full retard. 
 

I just skimmed a few sections and I couldn't believe what I was reading.  Its like they took Heller and Bruen on a trip into the Bizarro universe from the superman comics.  Claiming our side has to provide evidence that assault weapons and mags were in common use in 1791.  It is such an absurd revision of Bruen that I wasn't even sure I was reading things correctly until SteveTA84 also quoted it.

Then there is all of the interest balancing and heartstrings with the news reports. I think that is an attempt to bait our side into a callous response. The way to handle that is to agree that HP was a tragedy caused by a madman, but our 2A rights should not be limited due to the criminal acts of madmen, or we will end up with no 2A rights.  And that is why the US Supreme Court did away with interest balancing against the 2nd amendment as part of the Bruen decision.     

I haven't even looked at what they wrote in the historic regulations department.  

Of course it is. I admit I kinda hoped they would actually try to make the case that a rifle handguard of any type was a “barrel shroud”, but either they aren’t that stupid or they realized people had noticed thier game and pretended it didn’t happen. I could see them trying to prosecute people for having a semi-auto rifle with a handguard, they really are that asinine. Would have made demolishing this abomination way easier. 

[JTHunter]

On 3/3/2023 at 10:03 AM, Molly B. said:

I notice in the illustrative list that the banned firearms are listed as 'Regulated' Assault Weapons, 'Regulated' Semiautomatic Rifles (by feature), 'regulated semi-automatic pistols, 'Regulated' Large Capacity Magazine.

 

No, not regulated, Kwame. Banned.

 

That is how they think.  They "regulate" something in such a fashion as to "regulate" it out of existence.  This is part of the semantics games they play so they don't actually have to say "banned".

[Talonap]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:55 AM, Flynn said:

We should honestly be excited that they have gone full retard and I mean full retard and are not even attempting to defend their actions under the clearly laid out precedent set in Heller/Bruen, but instead are babbling like a drunk flat-Earther wearing a tin foil hat, smoking a crack pipe and telling everyone that gravity doesn't exist while they lick their computer monitors.

 

What's wrong with licking their computer monitors? ... Uh, asking for a friend ....

 

[Euler]

On 3/3/2023 at 11:03 AM, Molly B. said:

I notice in the illustrative list that the banned firearms are listed as 'Regulated' Assault Weapons, 'Regulated' Semiautomatic Rifles (by feature), 'regulated semi-automatic pistols, 'Regulated' Large Capacity Magazine.

 

No, not regulated, Kwame. Banned.

 

Remembering that "regulated" in a 2A context means "put or kept in operational order" ...

[MrTriple]

Does anyone have the case schedule on hand? I forget exactly when the briefs are due and when oral arguments are scheduled.

 

Once I know that I'll have some additional questions.

[Euler]

  

On 3/8/2023 at 2:15 PM, MrTriple said:

Does anyone have the case schedule on hand? I forget exactly when the briefs are due and when oral arguments are scheduled.

 

Once I know that I'll have some additional questions.

 

From Docket 32, February 24 (sorted by date):

March 2: Defendants response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction due (They met this deadline.)

March 16: Defendants response to pending complaints due

March 23: Plaintiffs reply, if any, to defendants' response to MPI due

April 12: Oral argument for MPI

 

From Docket 43, March 4:

February 24: Status conference/Motion hearing held

March 27: Transcript redaction requests due

April 4: Transcript released with redaction, if redaction requests made

June 2: Transcript released without redaction, if no redaction requests made

 

Recall that February 24 was the date that the judge ordered the cases to be consolidated.

 

I don't believe anything further has been scheduled yet.

 

Edited March 8, 2023 at 08:38 PM by Euler

[MrTriple]

On 3/8/2023 at 2:36 PM, Euler said:

 

From Docket 32, February 24 (sorted by date)

 

March 2: Defendants shall respond to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

March 23: Plaintiffs can reply to MPI

April 12: Oral argument

 

March 16: Defendants shall file answer or other responsive pleading to pending complaints

Responses due by 3/2/2023

Replies due by 3/23/2023

Motion Hearing set for 4/12/2023 01:30 PM

Answer due by 3/16/2023.

Thank you.

 

As I discussed in the Caulkins thread, I personally wonder whether we could see a preliminary injunction in Barnett before the State Supreme Court has received briefs, let alone scheduled oral arguments. But I also wondered why the judge hasn't issued an injunction yet, and wondered if it had to do with this March 23rd deadline for responses on the request for a preliminary injunction. Would that explain the delay?

[Euler]

First, I'll note that in your quote of me above, you quoted a version that was posted in error by the forum software. I don't know why, but when I clicked "Save," the forum software reached back in its edit history to post an intermediate version of the text I pasted/edited, but (thankfully) left the final version in the textbox at the bottom of the page, so (mostly) all I had to do was edit the post and paste the final text back in. ("Mostly" because the quote div was removed from around my quote of you, so then I had to edit again to put that back, too.)

 

On 3/8/2023 at 3:42 PM, MrTriple said:

... I also wondered why the judge hasn't issued an injunction yet, and wondered if it had to do with this March 23rd deadline for responses on the request for a preliminary injunction. Would that explain the delay?

 

A judge isn't going to issue an injunction without a hearing (any judge in any case). There isn't going to be a hearing until the opposing side has had a chance to file a brief. An injunction in Barnett wouldn't happen until after the oral argument.

[Upholder]

Docket entry 50: Illinois Sheriffs' Association Amicus Brief:

 

 

Illinois Sheriffs Amicus Brief.pdf

[MrTriple]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:49 PM, Euler said:

First, I'll note that in your quote of me above, you quoted a version that was posted in error by the forum software. I don't know why, but when I clicked "Save," the forum software reached back in its edit history to post an intermediate version of the text I pasted/edited, but (thankfully) left the final version in the textbox at the bottom of the page, so (mostly) all I had to do was edit the post and paste the final text back in. ("Mostly" because the quote div was removed from around my quote of you, so then I had to edit again to put that back, too.)

 

 

A judge isn't going to issue an injunction without a hearing (any judge in any case). There isn't going to be a hearing until the opposing side has had a chance to file a brief. An injunction in Barnett wouldn't happen until after the oral argument.

Given the timeline the judge set, is it more likely that he'd simply issue his ruling without first issuing any sort of injunction? Just hear the arguments in April, then issue his final ruling a few weeks later?