Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 10/28/2023 at 12:26 AM, Flynn said:

I beg to differ, the SCOTUS is doing what the SCOTUS does, they are giving the inferior courts a chance to get it right, when they fail to do that and the cases are complete and fully litigated I believe we will see the smack downs start to come, I also fully expect the SCOTUS to use Rahimi as one last white glove smack for the inferior courts to take notice before the gloves come off...  Sadly as much as it annoys many, this is how the SCOTUS operates...

 

:DOH: Flynn - this is what happens when posting so late and then forgetting to proof-read before posting.  I left out the word "not" as in "not" slapping down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The State of Illinois, in the legislation that lies at the
heart of these cases, has decided to regulate assault weapons
and high-capacity magazines—a decision that is valid only if
the regulated weapons lie on the military side of that line and
thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second
Amendment. Several municipalities have done the same. The
plaintiffs in these cases challenge that conclusion. Using the
tools of history and tradition to which the Supreme Court di-
rected us in Heller and Bruen, we conclude that the state and
the affected subdivisions have a strong likelihood of success
in the pending litigation. We therefore affirm the decisions of
the district courts in appeals No. 23-1353 and 23-1793 refusing
to enjoin these laws, and we vacate the injunction issued by
the district court in appeals No. 23-1825, 23-1826, 23-1827, and
23-1828.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7th believes that Friedman is still good law (bolding mine):

Quote

Some courts, including our own, steered clear of that two-
step approach. That explains the path we chose in Friedman,
which dealt with exactly the same issue we face now: a ban
on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Although
the district court in Bevis thought that the reasoning in Fried-
man might not have survived Bruen, we see Friedman as basi-
cally compatible with Bruen
, insofar as Friedman anticipated
the need to rest the analysis on history, not on a free-form bal-
ancing test.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7th improperly buys the state's argument that the plaintiffs must demonstrate that things are "Arms" by showing that they "weapons in common use for self-defense"

 

Quote

III. Application to the Cases
A. Are the Covered Weapons “Arms”?
We begin by looking at the “plain text” of the Second
Amendment to see whether the assault weapons and large-
capacity magazines (terms that we, like the parties, continue
to use as short-hand for the many items covered by these
laws) fall within the scope of the “Arms” that individual per-
sons are entitled to keep and bear. Both Supreme Court deci-
sions and historical sources indicate that the Arms the Second
Amendment is talking about are weapons in common use for
self-defense. That is not to say that there are no other lawful
uses for weapons—sporting uses, collection, and competi-
tions come to mind as examples. But the constitutional pro-
tection exists to protect the individual right to self-defense,
and so that will be our focus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The dissent, relying heavily on Staples v. United
States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), contends that the Court has already
decided that the AR-15 is in common use, and thus that the
weapon is presumptively immune from regulation. See post at
67. We see no such holding in Staples. That case had nothing
to do with the Second Amendment, which is mentioned no-
where in the opinion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They misread/misinterpret the discussion of M16s from Heller:

 

Quote

When we compare the AR-15s and other semiautomatic
weapons covered by the Act and its counterparts, we come to
the same conclusion. Indeed, we asked the plaintiffs at oral
argument to explain what distinguishes AR-15s from M16s,
the military’s counterpart that is capable of both fully auto-
matic operation and semiautomatic operation. The question
is important precisely because Heller itself stated that M16s
are not among the Arms covered by the Second Amendment;
they are instead a military weapon. See 554 U.S. at 624, 627.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7th determines that "Assault Weapons" and "Large Capacity Magazines" are not Arms:

 

Quote

Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and
feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy
Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen
analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this
conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity
magazines are much more like machineguns and military-
grade weaponry than they are like the many different types
of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the
legislature was entitled to conclude). Indeed, the AR-15 is al-
most the same gun as the M16 machinegun. The only mean-
ingful distinction, as we already have noted, is that the AR-15
has only semiautomatic capability (unless the user takes ad-
vantage of some simple modifications that essentially make it
fully automatic), while the M16 operates both ways. Both
weapons share the same core design, and both rely on the
same patented operating system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that
the AR-15 is materially different from the M16. Heller informs
us that the latter weapon is not protected by the Second
Amendment, and therefore may be regulated or banned. Be-
cause it is indistinguishable from that machinegun, the AR-15
may be treated in the same manner without offending the Sec-
ond Amendment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7th recognizes that the "Endorsement Affidavit" is a registration, but then claims that registration requirements are historically justified:

 

Quote

The laws before us have one
huge carve-out: people who presently own the listed firearms
or ammunition are entitled to keep them, subject only to a reg-
istration requirement that is no more onerous than many
found in history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Judge Brennan's dissent:

 

Quote

As an initial matter, magazines—ammunition feeding de-
vices without which semiautomatic firearms cannot operate
as intended—are “Arms.” Such devices are required as part of
the firing process. This court has recognized that corollaries
to firearms fall within Second Amendment protection. See
Wilson v. Cook County, 937 F.3d 1028, 1032 (7th Cir. 2019)
(quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 708 (7th Cir.
2011)). Further, the Act’s ban on magazines holding more
than ten rounds for rifles and more than fifteen rounds for
handguns effectively bans firearms that come standard with
magazines over the limit.
As for the broader definition of “Arms,” that term should
be read as “Arms”—not “Arms in common use at the time.”
In Heller, the Supreme Court recognized a “historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weap-
ons,’” 554 U.S. at 627, which may be regulated—a point it re-
peated in Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2143.
The Court “did not say that dangerous and unusual weap-
ons are not arms.” Teter v. Lopez, 76 F.4th 938, 950 (9th Cir.
2023) (emphasis in original) (ruling that Hawaii statute ban-
ning butterfly knives violated Second Amendment). To be
2 When the Supreme Court issued Bruen, it vacated several federal ap-
pellate decisions upholding gun controls laws, remanding them for recon-
sideration. Two of them—Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021),
and a**’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Att’y Gen. N.J., 974 F.3d 237 (3d
Cir. 2020)—concerned magazine limits of 10 rounds, and Bianchi v. Frosh,
858 F. App’x 645 (4th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (unpublished), upheld Mar-
yland’s “assault weapons” ban.
sure, this does not mean that the Second Amendment bars
governments from regulating weapons long held improper
for civilian use. This reading of Bruen permits the govern-
ment, for example, to preclude civilian ownership of military
weaponry when the history and tradition of weapons regula-
tion so dictates. As other examples, the government may pro-
hibit sawn-off rifles and shotguns, which properly qualify as
dangerous and unusual firearms as they are not ordinarily
used by law-abiding citizens. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 625 (“[T]he
Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typ-
ically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,
such as short-barreled shotguns.”). But that distinction does
not determine whether a weapon is an “Arm.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2023 at 4:51 PM, Upholder said:

Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that
the AR-15 is materially different from the M16......

 

I mean...yeah....other than the fact that the AR-15 is limited to semi-automatic operation, and the M16 is not. No big difference there.

 

Eyes wide shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for wasting months and letting their illegal ban and registration scheme take full effect, Barrett!!!  These Democrat tyrants do whatever they want, flip the bird at SCOTUS, wipe their rears with the constitution, stomp on our rights, and there's never a single consequence to them for it.  Gee, why do you suppose they engage in this unlawful behavior?  I'm starting on my exit plan from this communist police state hellhole!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2023 at 5:41 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Soooo.....what happens now? Appeal to SCOTUS and wait for years for a decision? Suddenly I have the answers and decisions I have been trying to make for months now. 

 

VooDoo

You’re F-ing yourself if you register. It’s already known they plan on confiscation. Either don’t say anything or move your stuff out of state if you’re worried 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2023 at 5:55 PM, steveTA84 said:

You’re F-ing yourself if you register. It’s already known they plan on confiscation. Either don’t say anything or move your stuff out of state if you’re worried 

 

Nope. I'm selling it all and hauling a**....guns, cars, house. This is where Amerika is going. I'm out....prolly hedge my bets tomorrow but I have cash and opportunities elsewhere. I'm not gonna be a criminal by decree.

 

VooDoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2023 at 5:10 PM, Upholder said:

I'm flabbergasted that Easterbrook is clinging to Friedman still being good law.

 

I'm not, he stated as much during the hearings that he believed it to still be good law. 

 

 

On 11/3/2023 at 5:08 PM, steveTA84 said:

We wanted this. This is the best horrible interest balancing ruling we could have hoped for lol

I'm with SteveTA84 on this.  This was the best thing the panel could have done to us.  This was one of the most erroneous and misconstrued opinions ever.  

 

The only disappointing aspect was Judge Brennan saying he believed that registration was okay.  How is registration okay under Bruen, or under the 5th amendment?      

 

 

 

 

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...