Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 11/9/2023 at 10:41 PM, Flynn said:

 

Nope, at least it wasn't challenged directly on 2nd challenge, it was lightly challenged on the commerce clause and equal protection, but not the 2nd...

 

Prior to Heller the courts were unified in that the 2nd was a 2nd class right that the government could use basically any means end argument to infringe, Heller changed everything...


Essentially this. And then look at the dissent from when the Supremes denied Cert in the 2015 Friedman case, as well as lower court opinions from current Supremes on the issue, and that is why many believe these bans are ripe to be picked after Bruen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2023 at 3:22 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I think a split is the right way to go at this time. 

 

The SCOTUS might take it up now with all that is going on - especially if they make it a point that Easterbrook is still using bad law and introducing a new military test, both of which go against the guidelines in Bruen and we have a jan 1st deadline to decide between our 2nd amendment rights and our 5th amendment rights. 

 

The ISRA should hammer that point.  

 

 

ISRA is going the route of the other 4 southern Illinois cases. And the Court won;t take Bevis if there is an active en banc petition pending. I don't want Bevis to be the lead case as I don't think it has the best fact pattern and I'm less than impressed by Herrea's pleadings as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

II. This Case Is Exceptionally Important.
“Since Bruen, this is the first federal appellate court to uphold a categorical
ban on semiautomatic weapons and certain magazines.” Op.94 (Brennan, J.,
dissenting). That alone should give the full Court pause. In the year-plus since
Bruen, no other circuit has so aggressively stripped its citizens of the fundamental
right Bruen vindicated. It is also difficult to overstate the practical importance of
this case. Not only has Illinois banned virtually every modern rifle on the market,
but within a matter of weeks, HB5471 will turn millions of people into criminals
unless they get rid of their lawfully acquired (and constitutionally protected) arms
or register them en masse—something that fewer than 10,000 people have so far
proven willing or able to do. See Illinois State Police, Firearm Owner Identification
Card Statistics, https://isp.illinois.gov/Foid/Statistics (last visited Nov. 16, 2023).
When the stakes are this high, and the panel opinion this wrong, the path forward
should be clear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2023 at 1:42 PM, Upholder said:

 

 

Actually, that is the En Banc motion from 3 of the 4 downstate cases. The lawyers worked together as did plaintiffs on how to pursue the path. we think once at least 1 other case figured out we were going en banc, it kinda nixed the SCOTUS route as SCOTUS would defer to the en banc petition and wait it's outcome. Some feel we are already past the point of being able to be considred this term/before the end of the year. So lets see what we can get en banc. 

 

Other factors are if the 4th does what we think it will do we have a split in the circuits. 

 

We also now have the FFL-IL, GOA, GSL case challenging the registration issue with a 2A challenge as well as vagueness etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I am hearing is that there is NO WAY this crap gets shut down or thrown out before they can start locking folks up in January for not following their unconstitutional mandates. They get to drag their feet and keep screwing us over while playing ring around the rosie with every court they can find (especially those they have bought and paid for). Yeah, gotta rant a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2023 at 3:21 PM, ragsbo said:

So what I am hearing is that there is NO WAY this crap gets shut down or thrown out before they can start locking folks up in January for not following their unconstitutional mandates. They get to drag their feet and keep screwing us over while playing ring around the rosie with every court they can find (especially those they have bought and paid for). Yeah, gotta rant a little.

The politicians and activist gun grabbing  judges hate you. They want you jailed or killed if you don’t comply. But we are awaiting injunctions on vagueness and the registry out of McGlynn’s court, and McGylnn said he will have an order regarding the registry before 1/1/24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2023 at 3:21 PM, ragsbo said:

So what I am hearing is that there is NO WAY this crap gets shut down or thrown out before they can start locking folks up in January for not following their unconstitutional mandates. They get to drag their feet and keep screwing us over while playing ring around the rosie with every court they can find (especially those they have bought and paid for). Yeah, gotta rant a little.


That was at least part of the intent of Pritzker, Morgan, and Co. since the beginning.  They were well aware of the fact that a law like this was in direct contradiction to Bruen. They also knew the odds of it getting up to the Supremes before Jan 1, 2024 were slim. And they also knew that there was a good chance they would get a panel with Easterbrook (since he wrote the 2015 decision), that would ensure the 7th would slow it down. The Hail Mary throw on their end is that something happens to create a shift in the Supreme Court makeup by the time this issue does get a hearing there. That’s still TBD.

 

Having said all that, I do see a slight possibility that a Preliminary Injunction holds up at the 7th. Not due to its 2A questions, but mainly due to Pritzker and ISP dragging their feet too much with the rules, filing them so late and writing them in such a confusing manner that there’s no possible way the confusing and ambiguous Emergency rules will be fairly clarified, finalized, and permanently adopted by Jan 1. I think there’s a very good chance McGlynn issues an injunction before Jan 1, and a small chance, but not totally out of the realm of possibility, that the 7th let’s it stand at least until final rules are adopted. 

Edited by MRE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/24/2023 at 8:38 AM, MRE said:


That was at least part of the intent of Pritzker, Morgan, and Co. since the beginning.  They were well aware of the fact that a law like this was in direct contradiction to Bruen. They also knew the odds of it getting up to the Supremes before Jan 1, 2024 were slim. And they also knew that there was a good chance they would get a panel with Easterbrook (since he wrote the 2015 decision), that would ensure the 7th would slow it down. The Hail Mary throw on their end is that something happens to create a shift in the Supreme Court makeup by the time this issue does get a hearing there. That’s still TBD.

 

Having said all that, I do see a slight possibility that a Preliminary Injunction holds up at the 7th. Not due to its 2A questions, but mainly due to Pritzker and ISP dragging their feet too much with the rules, filing them so late and writing them in such a confusing manner that there’s no possible way the confusing and ambiguous Emergency rules will be fairly clarified, finalized, and permanently adopted by Jan 1. I think there’s a very good chance McGlynn issues an injunction before Jan 1, and a small chance, but not totally out of the realm of possibility, that the 7th let’s it stand at least until final rules are adopted. 

 

If you don't think this was "war gamed out" out in advance your in denial.

When you see names like Perkins-Coie behind this stuff, you know dealing with underhanded evil, and in blue state like Illinois your going to be fighting an uphill battle against "TEAM ""D"" ".

Just look at their role in the 2016 election, they are/were on Hillary and the Democrats side.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2023 at 11:29 PM, mab22 said:

 

If you don't think this was "war gamed out" out in advance your in denial.

When you see names like Perkins-Coie behind this stuff, you know dealing with underhanded evil, and in blue state like Illinois your going to be fighting an uphill battle against "TEAM ""D"" ".

Just look at their role in the 2016 election, they are/were on Hillary and the Democrats side.

 

 

You got that right! Laws be damned, they will do what they want when they want and if you fuss, tie it up in court for centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the orders (4, identical text):

 

Quote

Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a petition for rehearing en banc on November 17, 2023.
No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en
banc, and all members of the original panel have voted to deny panel rehearing. The
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2023 at 8:38 AM, MRE said:


That was at least part of the intent of Pritzker, Morgan, and Co. since the beginning.  They were well aware of the fact that a law like this was in direct contradiction to Bruen. They also knew the odds of it getting up to the Supremes before Jan 1, 2024 were slim. And they also knew that there was a good chance they would get a panel with Easterbrook (since he wrote the 2015 decision), that would ensure the 7th would slow it down. The Hail Mary throw on their end is that something happens to create a shift in the Supreme Court makeup by the time this issue does get a hearing there. That’s still TBD.

 

Having said all that, I do see a slight possibility that a Preliminary Injunction holds up at the 7th. Not due to its 2A questions, but mainly due to Pritzker and ISP dragging their feet too much with the rules, filing them so late and writing them in such a confusing manner that there’s no possible way the confusing and ambiguous Emergency rules will be fairly clarified, finalized, and permanently adopted by Jan 1. I think there’s a very good chance McGlynn issues an injunction before Jan 1, and a small chance, but not totally out of the realm of possibility, that the 7th let’s it stand at least until final rules are adopted. 


Well the first domino of my predictions fell this afternoon, when JCAR took no action, including not issuing a  certificate of no objection. This makes it virtually impossible procedurally for the permanent rules to be adopted before Jan 1.

 

This obviously bolsters the arguments this afternoon in the Southern District. We’ll see what happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2023 at 2:15 PM, MRE said:


Well the first domino of my predictions fell this afternoon, when JCAR took no action, including not issuing a  certificate of no objection. This makes it virtually impossible procedurally for the permanent rules to be adopted before Jan 1.

 

This obviously bolsters the arguments this afternoon in the Southern District. We’ll see what happens. 


Doesn’t sound to promising for any sort of injunction before Jan 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about the "inclined to not enjoin" comment overnight... I'm glad the judge is on record making that statement. It signals to SCOTUS that if they intend to put a hold on this law pending final court decisions, they'll need to do it because at this point it leaves nobody else. 

 

So, our rights are once again in the hands of SCOTUS.  FWIW I think there is a less than 1% chance SCOTUS blocks this before Jan 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2023 at 12:07 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Thinking about the "inclined to not enjoin" comment overnight... I'm glad the judge is on record making that statement. It signals to SCOTUS that if they intend to put a hold on this law pending final court decisions, they'll need to do it because at this point it leaves nobody else. 

 

So, our rights are once again in the hands of SCOTUS.  FWIW I think there is a less than 1% chance SCOTUS blocks this before Jan 1st.


I absolutely agree and suspect that the reason that no en banc vote was called (despite clearly having some judges sympathetic to our arguments) and that McGlynn is telegraphing he won’t block registration is that the 2a friendly judges are standing by to leave it up to SCOTUS to pause the law as they should. If scotus doesn’t act now they are repeating the mistakes of Heller and will be walked over again by the lower courts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2023 at 12:46 PM, Matt B said:

If scotus doesn’t act now they are repeating the mistakes of Heller and will be walked over again by the lower courts. 

 

I've repeatedly voiced my concern here about our side treating Bruen as a final and complete answer to all our woes, and I still see no evidence that it will turn out to be any more potent in the real world than Heller or McDonald.  We knew the same lower courts that twisted the words of those previous rulings would do the same thing with Bruen, and they have.  We knew we would have to run it back up to SCOTUS, and that's what's happening.  People here claimed that we would get much swifter answers from SCOTUS as a result of Bruen, and that remains to be seen.  

 

I hope I'm wrong, and I will continue to donate to fund these suits regardless, but I also think this needs to be a wake-up call for the crowd that has considered court actions to be our only viable move.  We need to get back in the game on a legislative and PR front to have a chance of even stopping the infringements where they now stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2023 at 1:42 PM, TargetCollector said:

People here claimed that we would get much swifter answers from SCOTUS as a result of Bruen, and that remains to be seen.  

I share that concern BUT this has moved at lightning speed when compared to Bruen. We are not even a year out and its already basically at SCOTUS.......what happens now is up to them.

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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...