Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 6/29/2023 at 12:14 PM, Mitch said:

Honestly, did anyone really expect much different?  If you want your rights to be respected your best option at this point is a realtor. 

💯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When asked the machine gun question our side could have done a much better job:

 

Something to the effect of;

 

"It is quite possible that Bruen does find the NFA unconstitutional, but I'm not here to argue that law/case. Today I'm here to argue about a ban on commonly owned semi automatic arms."

 

Then when Easterbrook goes on his tommy gun tangent, bring it back that there might be a challenge to the NFA per Bruen, but also state that its not known if tommy guns were commonly owned at that time.  (who the heck knows that off hand unless it was thoroughly researched before hand)

 

Then when Easterbrook and Wood flexibly define what a "ban" is you need to pull out that the NFA didn't ban automatic weapons as tightly as this AWB does to AR-15s.

 

its easy to hindsight this but the 2nd amendment side really wasn't polished.

Edited by starwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The panel was stacked, which isn't unexpected. No attorney for our side would've been able to win over this particular panel.

 

That being said, Murphy really shouldn't have argued this case, and shouldn't be the one to argue any future hearings, either. Even when the case was still before Judge McGlynn, her debate skills were shown to be lacking, as was her understanding of the subject matter. I question why she was chosen in the first place.

 

Maag did well and kept his wits about him. He should've argued in place of Murphy, both today and in the future.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 1:14 PM, Upholder said:

One mention of Caetano.  No mentions of Staples.   The Judges were trying to litigate issues that are not part of this case.   Very disappointing.

They were essentially trying to relitigate Heller and Bruen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 1:25 PM, davel501 said:

There was a huge opportunity missed when Wood kept insisting this does not ban anything - it bans spare parts even wear items like springs. It is an all out ban it just takes time for the banned items to wear out.

 

And not that I think I would have done better. It's one thing to sit in your living room and have the answers come easy another to be in the room with someone that hates you glaring down at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This was a hostile panel.  They ran with every nonsensical and talking point they could. 

 

From the very beginning I stressed how important oral arguments are going up against an anti-gun activist judiciary.  

 

Our side went up against a hostile panel and the female (I forgot her name) got tripped up against the misdirection, and non sequitur arguments made by the activist judges.  They should have been prepared for Easterbrook's refusal to admit that his own precedent is now bad law in light of Bruen. 

 

With weeks to prepare, I'm surprised that they didn't appear ready for the activism that was on full display by the judges.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 2:34 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

This was a hostile panel.  They ran with every nonsensical and talking point they could. 

 

From the very beginning I stressed how important oral arguments are going up against an anti-gun activist judiciary.  

 

Our side went up against a hostile panel and the female (I forgot her name) got tripped up against the misdirection, and non sequitur arguments made by the activist judges.  They should have been prepared for Easterbrook's refusal to admit that his own precedent is now bad law in light of Bruen. 

 

With weeks to prepare, I'm surprised that they didn't appear ready for the activism that was on full display by the judges.   

 

 

Well, the activism of the judges could help us later. SCOTUS could be more inclined to step in and deal with this as a result of the complete wrong application and/or ignoring of Heller and NYSRPA.

Edited by Evil Porkchop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 2:48 PM, Evil Porkchop said:

Well, the activism of the judges could help us later. SCOTUS could be more inclined to step in and deal with this as a result of the complete wrong application and/or ignoring of Heller and NYSRPA.

 

I agree, Illinois is essentially setting it self up to be the state that makes it to the Supreme Court so Heller can be explained a third time, and I fully believe the SCOTUS is closely watching IL specifically right now, due to the Judge Easterbrook and Illinois leaning on their own bad precedent post Bruen that has already red flagged Illinois' inferior courts as not paying attention to the SCOTUS in Bruen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in the "court house" (the Dirksen Building, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chicago).   I was on the 17th floor, which was overflow from the actual court room, so I watched on closed-circuit local in-building video.  The room was about 90% full and was just another court room similar to the actual court room.

 

I wore a black ball cap with white letters "Come And Take It" with an AR-15 embroidered image.   I didn't see any obvious allies anywhere, and the people seated near me in the court room were law students who take a dim view of 2A, based upon the small-talk chatter I heard before the proceedings got started.  Outside, I saw about 5 people from "March For Our Lives" with a folding table with some of their printed propaganda and no visitors.  There were about 15 Chicago Police patrol officers in front of the building with nothing to do, no doubt at the Mayor's orders, but with no actual need other than to waste their time and the tax payers money.

 

As I was about to walk the 6 blocks to the court house, I realized I had an automatic knife in my pocket, which I took out and left in my office.  Had I made it to the court security with the knife, that would obviously have been problematic.

 

I was glad I went.  I missed seeing our various friends including many here who have been at other oral arguments in the past such as the McDonald case and Mary Shepherd's case.

 

Much time was wasted by Judges Easterbrook and Wood on hand grenades, rocket launchers, abortion, and other issues not before the court.  I think that was intentional because they must be quite frustrated that they are inferior court judges and are commanded by the US Constitution (which they detest) to follow the precedent of the SCOTUS, whether they like it or not, whether they are smarter then the SCOTUS Justices or not.  Judge Easterbrook certainly agrees that he is an intellectual powerhouse, which is what others say about him.

 

Judge Easterbrook is one of those intellectuals who have a massive blind spot that creates its own kind of stupidity.   He thinks he has found the internal fallacy of the SCOTUS Heller reasoning and by showing the fallacy, he shows the illegitimacy of the Heller SCOTUS Opinion.

 

I will ask a non-original question structured similarly as Judge Easterbrook's, a question that has been asked by jokesters and atheists for thousands of years to mock believers:

 

Question: "If God is all-powerful, can He make something so massive and heavy, that He cannot lift it?"

 

This question must be answered Yes or No, and either answer is intended to expose the religious Responder as a fraud and a hypocrite and that God does not exist.  The question itself is a fraud.

 

I would rephrase the question as "If Judge Easterbrook were God, can he make something so heavy that Judge Easterbrook could not lift it?".  Since neither Yes or No are rational, we thereby prove the the non-existence of Judge Easterbrook.  Wouldn't that be nice?

 

His actual question, which he held onto like Gollum thirsting for the "Precious" Ring in the book "Lord of the Rings", was (paraphrased):

 

If a type of gun cannot be banned (according to Heller) because it is in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, can it be banned if it not in common use (as full auto machine guns are banned)?

 

If you answer "No, you cannot ban guns in common lawful use but you can ban uncommon, rare, unusual guns", you are deemed by Easterbrook as a fraud and hypocrite, because any popular type of arm or gun was once rare, and you cannot have shifting standards of Constitutionality, according to his "logic".  It cannot be allowed to ban guns that are uncommon but not ban guns that are in common use by citizens for lawful purposes.  

 

If you answer "Yes, the government can ban any arms", then you have answered as Judge Easterbrook wants, but if you represent the plaintiff's, you would or should get disbarred for failing to represent your client.

 

Regardless of whether or not Judge Easterbrook has identified an irrationality in Heller or not (he hasn't), his job is to follow the orders of the SCOTUS, which is something he is unlikely to do.   He didn't learn from getting overturned by SCOTUS in McDonald, and he is not about to start learning now.

 

And I have, an average guy not as smart as Judge Easterbrook (although quite handsome as all would agree), exposed the idiocy of Judge Easterbrook's questioning on "common use", and shown him as the giant fraud that he certainly is.  But he's too smart for that, in fact, he has no idea.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 8:33 PM, Howard Roark said:

I was in the "court house" (the Dirksen Building, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chicago).   I was on the 17th floor, which was overflow from the actual court room, so I watched on closed-circuit local in-building video.  The room was about 90% full and was just another court room similar to the actual court room.

 

I wore a black ball cap with white letters "Come And Take It" with an AR-15 embroidered image.   I didn't see any obvious allies anywhere, and the people seated near me in the court room were law students who take a dim view of 2A, based upon the small-talk chatter I heard before the proceedings got started.  Outside, I saw about 5 people from "March For Our Lives" with a folding table with some of their printed propaganda and no visitors.  There were about 15 Chicago Police patrol officers in front of the building with nothing to do, no doubt at the Mayor's orders, but with no actual need other than to waste their time and the tax payers money.

 

As I was about to walk the 6 blocks to the court house, I realized I had an automatic knife in my pocket, which I took out and left in my office.  Had I made it to the court security with the knife, that would obviously have been problematic.

 

I was glad I went.  I missed seeing our various friends including many here who have been at other oral arguments in the past such as the McDonald case and Mary Shepherd's case.

 

Much time was wasted by Judges Easterbrook and Wood on hand grenades, rocket launchers, abortion, and other issues not before the court.  I think that was intentional because they must be quite frustrated that they are inferior court judges and are commanded by the US Constitution (which they detest) to follow the precedent of the SCOTUS, whether they like it or not, whether they are smarter then the SCOTUS Justices or not.  Judge Easterbrook certainly agrees that he is an intellectual powerhouse, which is what others say about him.

 

Judge Easterbrook is one of those intellectuals who have a massive blind spot that creates its own kind of stupidity.   He thinks he has found the internal fallacy of the SCOTUS Heller reasoning and by showing the fallacy, he shows the illegitimacy of the Heller SCOTUS Opinion.

 

I will ask a non-original question structured similarly as Judge Easterbrook's, a question that has been asked by jokesters and atheists for thousands of years to mock believers:

 

Question: "If God is all-powerful, can He make something so massive and heavy, that He cannot lift it?"

 

This question must be answered Yes or No, and either answer is intended to expose the religious Responder as a fraud and a hypocrite and that God does not exist.  The question itself is a fraud.

 

I would rephrase the question as "If Judge Easterbrook were God, can he make something so heavy that Judge Easterbrook could not lift it?".  Since neither Yes or No are rational, we thereby prove the the non-existence of Judge Easterbrook.  Wouldn't that be nice?

 

His actual question, which he held onto like Gollum thirsting for the "Precious" Ring in the book "Lord of the Rings", was (paraphrased):

 

If a type of gun cannot be banned (according to Heller) because it is in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, can it be banned if it not in common use (as full auto machine guns are banned)?

 

If you answer "No, you cannot ban guns in common lawful use but you can ban uncommon, rare, unusual guns", you are deemed by Easterbrook as a fraud and hypocrite, because any popular type of arm or gun was once rare, and you cannot have shifting standards of Constitutionality, according to his "logic".  It cannot be allowed to ban guns that are uncommon but not ban guns that are in common use by citizens for lawful purposes.  

 

If you answer "Yes, the government can ban any arms", then you have answered as Judge Easterbrook wants, but if you represent the plaintiff's, you would or should get disbarred for failing to represent your client.

 

Regardless of whether or not Judge Easterbrook has identified an irrationality in Heller or not (he hasn't), his job is to follow the orders of the SCOTUS, which is something he is unlikely to do.   He didn't learn from getting overturned by SCOTUS in McDonald, and he is not about to start learning now.

 

And I have, an average guy not as smart as Judge Easterbrook (although quite handsome as all would agree), exposed the idiocy of Judge Easterbrook's questioning on "common use", and shown him as the giant fraud that he certainly is.  But he's too smart for that, in fact, he has no idea.

 

 

💯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 8:33 PM, Howard Roark said:

I was in the "court house" (the Dirksen Building, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chicago).   I was on the 17th floor, which was overflow from the actual court room, so I watched on closed-circuit local in-building video.  The room was about 90% full and was just another court room similar to the actual court room.

 

I wore a black ball cap with white letters "Come And Take It" with an AR-15 embroidered image.   I didn't see any obvious allies anywhere, and the people seated near me in the court room were law students who take a dim view of 2A, based upon the small-talk chatter I heard before the proceedings got started.  Outside, I saw about 5 people from "March For Our Lives" with a folding table with some of their printed propaganda and no visitors.  There were about 15 Chicago Police patrol officers in front of the building with nothing to do, no doubt at the Mayor's orders, but with no actual need other than to waste their time and the tax payers money.

 

As I was about to walk the 6 blocks to the court house, I realized I had an automatic knife in my pocket, which I took out and left in my office.  Had I made it to the court security with the knife, that would obviously have been problematic.

 

I was glad I went.  I missed seeing our various friends including many here who have been at other oral arguments in the past such as the McDonald case and Mary Shepherd's case.

 

Much time was wasted by Judges Easterbrook and Wood on hand grenades, rocket launchers, abortion, and other issues not before the court.  I think that was intentional because they must be quite frustrated that they are inferior court judges and are commanded by the US Constitution (which they detest) to follow the precedent of the SCOTUS, whether they like it or not, whether they are smarter then the SCOTUS Justices or not.  Judge Easterbrook certainly agrees that he is an intellectual powerhouse, which is what others say about him.

 

Judge Easterbrook is one of those intellectuals who have a massive blind spot that creates its own kind of stupidity.   He thinks he has found the internal fallacy of the SCOTUS Heller reasoning and by showing the fallacy, he shows the illegitimacy of the Heller SCOTUS Opinion.

 

I will ask a non-original question structured similarly as Judge Easterbrook's, a question that has been asked by jokesters and atheists for thousands of years to mock believers:

 

Question: "If God is all-powerful, can He make something so massive and heavy, that He cannot lift it?"

 

This question must be answered Yes or No, and either answer is intended to expose the religious Responder as a fraud and a hypocrite and that God does not exist.  The question itself is a fraud.

 

I would rephrase the question as "If Judge Easterbrook were God, can he make something so heavy that Judge Easterbrook could not lift it?".  Since neither Yes or No are rational, we thereby prove the the non-existence of Judge Easterbrook.  Wouldn't that be nice?

 

His actual question, which he held onto like Gollum thirsting for the "Precious" Ring in the book "Lord of the Rings", was (paraphrased):

 

If a type of gun cannot be banned (according to Heller) because it is in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, can it be banned if it not in common use (as full auto machine guns are banned)?

 

If you answer "No, you cannot ban guns in common lawful use but you can ban uncommon, rare, unusual guns", you are deemed by Easterbrook as a fraud and hypocrite, because any popular type of arm or gun was once rare, and you cannot have shifting standards of Constitutionality, according to his "logic".  It cannot be allowed to ban guns that are uncommon but not ban guns that are in common use by citizens for lawful purposes.  

 

If you answer "Yes, the government can ban any arms", then you have answered as Judge Easterbrook wants, but if you represent the plaintiff's, you would or should get disbarred for failing to represent your client.

 

Regardless of whether or not Judge Easterbrook has identified an irrationality in Heller or not (he hasn't), his job is to follow the orders of the SCOTUS, which is something he is unlikely to do.   He didn't learn from getting overturned by SCOTUS in McDonald, and he is not about to start learning now.

 

And I have, an average guy not as smart as Judge Easterbrook (although quite handsome as all would agree), exposed the idiocy of Judge Easterbrook's questioning on "common use", and shown him as the giant fraud that he certainly is.  But he's too smart for that, in fact, he has no idea.

 

 

 

The board needs an option to upvote. 

 

+1 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 8:33 PM, Howard Roark said:

 

If a type of gun cannot be banned (according to Heller) because it is in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, can it be banned if it not in common use (as full auto machine guns are banned)?

 

If you answer "No, you cannot ban guns in common lawful use but you can ban uncommon, rare, unusual guns", you are deemed by Easterbrook as a fraud and hypocrite, because any popular type of arm or gun was once rare, and you cannot have shifting standards of Constitutionality, according to his "logic".  It cannot be allowed to ban guns that are uncommon but not ban guns that are in common use by citizens for lawful purposes.  

 

If you answer "Yes, the government can ban any arms", then you have answered as Judge Easterbrook wants, but if you represent the plaintiff's, you would or should get disbarred for failing to represent your client.


Let’s see if I understand the question properly, using a car analogy.

 

If I create an electric car, using nuclear energy to generate the electricity, and it’s VERY NEW TECH, yet modern, yet not wildly adopted yet, could the government ban it because it brand new and not in as common use as a typical electric car? 
Substitute what you need for a newer or modern firearm… 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 11:09 PM, mab22 said:


Let’s see if I understand the question properly, using a car analogy.

 

If I create an electric car, using nuclear energy to generate the electricity, and it’s VERY NEW TECH, yet modern, yet not wildly adopted yet, could the government ban it because it brand new and not in as common use as a typical electric car? 
Substitute what you need for a newer or modern firearm… 
 

 

 

It's a forked two tier test, if it's common use it's protected, and the test is over.  If it's something like you proclaim that is new and/or not common use, then it's presumed protect until and only if the state can prove it's dangerous and unusual and that history and tradition supports it's banning can it be banned.

 

The imporrant clause is in Heller, "The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms" thus by default every new arm design and every existing arm is assumed protected by the 2nd until and only if a court decides otherwise, and the entire burden to prove to yhe court that it's not protected is entirely on the state.

 

The primary problem we face right now is that activist Judges refuse to accept the test(s) established in Heller/Bruen, that is our primary problem right now.

 

We also need to focus on classes of arms vs individual models, Heller ruled on the class of 'pistols' Caetano ruled on the class of 'stun guns' there is no reason to believe the SCOTUS is going to start ruling on every model of firearm, they are almost certainly going to rule on the entire class of 'rifles' or possibly 'semi-auto rifles' vs the silly never ending game of ruling on every specific model number.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless that "task force" has been quietly amassing untold numbers of search warrants issued by a friendly judge AND assembling teams of well-armed troopers to execute those warrants, they really can't get everyone all at once.  What they can do is get a few key individuals, loudly and publicly, to scare the rest of the non-compliant folks into registering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also heard straight from the mouths of troopers that they have no intention of enforcing this nonsense, and will make up any excuse to avoid it - that and $10 will get you a butterburger basket at Culvers. Beyond that, the state only knows who bought rifles, not semi-auto rifles, unless they visit every FFL in the state and seize the 4473's, which isn't happening at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2023 at 9:45 AM, countyline said:

I've also heard straight from the mouths of troopers that they have no intention of enforcing this nonsense, and will make up any excuse to avoid it - that and $10 will get you a butterburger basket at Culvers. Beyond that, the state only knows who bought rifles, not semi-auto rifles, unless they visit every FFL in the state and seize the 4473's, which isn't happening at this point. 

 

It's always fun to ask them this follow-up question: "What are you going to do when one of those super cops that is always creating situations gets in a shootout with a house full of otherwise law abiding citizens defending their rights?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 8:33 PM, Howard Roark said:

If a type of gun cannot be banned (according to Heller) because it is in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, can it be banned if it not in common use (as full auto machine guns are banned)?

He's deliberately ignoring that the common use test is just a tool used to immediately determine that an arm cannot be banned. If an arm is not in common use then other criteria set forth Heller and Bruen apply as to whether or not they fall under 2A protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2023 at 9:45 AM, countyline said:

I've also heard straight from the mouths of troopers that they have no intention of enforcing this nonsense, and will make up any excuse to avoid it - that and $10 will get you a butterburger basket at Culvers. Beyond that, the state only knows who bought rifles, not semi-auto rifles, unless they visit every FFL in the state and seize the 4473's, which isn't happening at this point. 

Not to mention that ownership IS NOT BANNED, nor does it require registration. POSSESSION within the State is what requires registration. Simply determining whether one owns a banned firearm is not sufficient, they must also determine the location of said firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...