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

[Euler]

On 3/15/2023 at 5:48 PM, MrTriple said:

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?

 

The hearing on April 12 is for a preliminary injunction. The judge is not going to issue a preliminary injunction before having a hearing for a preliminary injunction.

[MrTriple]

On 3/15/2023 at 5:05 PM, Euler said:

 

The hearing on April 12 is for a preliminary injunction. The judge is not going to issue a preliminary injunction before having a hearing for a preliminary injunction.

That makes more sense. I was under the impression that the April hearing was an actual trial, not merely a hearing for a preliminary injunction.

[Upholder]

A Flurry of filings from the defense and related parties today:

 

• Docket entry 54 - NOTICE by Everytown for Gun Safety re 47 Order,, Terminate Motions,, Set Deadlines, Amicus Brief (Raveendran, Bhavani) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.54.0.pdf
• Docket entry 55 - ANSWER to 1 Complaint (Barnett) by Brendan F. Kelly, Kwame Raoul.(Bautista, Laura) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.55.0.pdf
• Docket entry 56 - ANSWER to Complaint (Harrel) by Brendan F. Kelly, Kwame Raoul.(Bautista, Laura) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.56.0.pdf
• Docket entry 57 - ANSWER to Complaint (Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois) by Brendan F. Kelly, Jay Robert Pritzker, Kwame Raoul.(Bautista, Laura) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.57.0.pdf
• Docket entry 58 - ANSWER to Complaint (Langley) by Brendan F. Kelly.(Bautista, Laura) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.58.0.pdf
• Docket entry 59 - Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Cole Price Shaner.(Hill, Keith) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.59.0.pdf
• Docket entry 60 - Defendant Jarrod Peters and James Kelly's ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Jarrod Peters, Jeremy Walker.(Godfrey, James) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.60.0.pdf

[Upholder]

I'm skimming through the various filings and this bit caught my eye from Docket entry 55:

 

 

 

They won't even admit that the quotations of the law are accurate.

 

 

[springfield shooter]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:11 PM, Upholder said:

I'm skimming through the various filings and this bit caught my eye from Docket entry 55:

 

 

 

They won't even admit that the quotations of the law are accurate.

 

 

 

But they are sure it's constitutional.   🙄😎

[Upholder]

The state is also demanding a jury trial in docket 55:

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:20 PM, Upholder said:

The state is also demanding a jury trial in docket 55:

 

 

 

This means they know they are screwed and that their last hope is a jury full of idiots/people willing to side with them over their own political beliefs 

Edited March 17, 2023 at 01:22 AM by steveTA84

[Upholder]

From Docket 56:

 

[Upholder]

This snippet is from Docket 56, but they made a similar answer in 55:

 

 

 

They want to claim that a semiautomatic firearm  "may be modified to fire more than one round per trigger pull" and does not become a machine gun?   This is a bit of a head-scratcher to me; I'm not sure what they're angling after here.

[Upholder]

This seems to be fatal to their argument that the arms in question are not used for lawful purposes (from Docket 56):

 

[Upholder]

From 56:

 

 

 

They're unwilling to admit that this is the first law passed in Illinois restricting magazines of any capacity.

[Upholder]

From 56:

 

[Upholder]

Docket 57 is their answer to the FFL complaint and in it they answer:

 

 

 

Seeing as how the claims are all based upon the state passing HB5417, I'm not certain why they are trying to claim that the Federal court for the Southern District of Illinois is not the proper venue.

[Upholder]

From docket 57 they say:

 

 

 

You can judge for yourself if the provided paragraph from SCOUTS' opinion from Bruen is inaccurate.  Here's the full quotation from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

 

[Upholder]

From 57:

 

 

 

They so very much want interest-balancing to be on the table, even though they admit in paragraph 49 that Bruen states that it's not allowable:

 

[Upholder]

Docket 57, they appear to be playing semantics games:

 

 

If you go directly to the link (which is the image of the AR-15) the text is not visible.  If you go back to the actual article that the images are associated with right now, you find:

 

Edited March 17, 2023 at 02:00 AM by Upholder

[steveTA84]

They’ve gone full r*tard

[springfield shooter]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:22 PM, steveTA84 said:

.......their last hope is a jury full of idiots/people willing to side with them over their own political beliefs 

 

Down here? They may as well howl at the moon.

[Upholder]

From 57 "We admit a different thing than you claim, in fact the opposite of what you claim":

 

 

 

 

[Euler]

It's pretty standard for defendants to deny all the allegations in a complaint. The point of a trial is to determine what the actual facts are.

 

On 3/16/2023 at 9:22 PM, steveTA84 said:

This means they know they are screwed and that their last hope is a jury full of idiots/people willing to side with them over their own political beliefs 

 

They just need to find 12 people who aren't firearm owners.

[steveTA84]

On 3/16/2023 at 9:03 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

Down here? They may as well howl at the moon.

You know......good point 

[Upholder]

It is my understanding (as a non-lawyer) that Juries are finders of fact.  Judges apply laws.  There are no facts here, only laws to be interpreted and thus a Jury trial is inappropriate.

[springfield shooter]

On 3/16/2023 at 9:10 PM, Upholder said:

It is my understanding (as a non-lawyer) that Juries are finders of fact.  Judges apply laws.  There are no facts here, only laws to be interpreted and thus a Jury trial is inappropriate.

 

Yeah, I was wondering what place a jury would have in determining constitutional questions. But, I'm not a lawyer either.

 

Here's hoping one chimes in.

[Upholder]

Docket 58 has another "we admit to something you did not claim" instance:

 

[Upholder]

Docket 59:

 

[JTHunter]

On 3/16/2023 at 9:02 PM, steveTA84 said:

They’ve gone full r*tard

 

They were already that.  Now they have just sunk to a new low.

[gunuser17]

Some issues in a case can be a mixed question of law and fact.  For instance, what is the scope of a 1789 statute that one side argues covers prohibition of semi automatic rifles  while plaintiffs might say that such a (imaginary) statute has nothing to do with such rifles.  Is that a fact determination for the jury, or a legal issue for the judge?  Or, is a fact determination needed as to whether some obscure prohibition found in a 1789 book was ever enacted into law.  I don't know the answers to those questions but a judge could put such determinations to the jury, even if only seeking an advisory opinion that the judge will make the ultimate final determination.

 

Denying everything in an answer is not unusual although in Federal Court, a judge could come down hard on the defense's answers.  Not sure as to how much federal court experience the state's lawyers have.

Edited March 17, 2023 at 03:33 AM by gunuser17

[Upholder]

I'm not sure of the answers but NYSPRA v Bruen had no trial.  The various cases in front of the Federal court in California have had no trials..  I would not expect a Jury trial to be warranted here.

[Flynn]

On 3/16/2023 at 9:10 PM, Upholder said:

It is my understanding (as a non-lawyer) that Juries are finders of fact.  Judges apply laws.  There are no facts here, only laws to be interpreted and thus a Jury trial is inappropriate.

 

I 100% agree, a jury trial is inappropriate and should not be granted, it;s the judge has to interpret the law here.

[Flynn]

On 3/16/2023 at 10:32 PM, gunuser17 said:

Some issues in a case can be a mixed question of law and fact.  For instance, what is the scope of a 1789 statute that one side argues covers prohibition of semi automatic rifles  while plaintiffs might say that such a (imaginary) statute has nothing to do with such rifles.  Is that a fact determination for the jury, or a legal issue for the judge?  Or, is a fact determination needed as to whether some obscure prohibition found in a 1789 book was ever enacted into law.  I don't know the answers to those questions but a judge could put such determinations to the jury, even if only seeking an advisory opinion that the judge will make the ultimate final determination.

 

Denying everything in an answer is not unusual although in Federal Court, a judge could come down hard on the defense's answers.  Not sure as to how much federal court experience the state's lawyers have.

 

In cases like this the court/judge would generally appoint a Special Master to determine those facts if and when needed.

Edited March 17, 2023 at 03:55 AM by Flynn