Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

On 1/17/2024 at 2:12 PM, skinnyb82 said:

Might McGlynn be trying to make this too juicy for SCOTUS to pass up? 🤔 I mean, Easterbrook did a reverse Miller. So he's technically defying two SCOTUS precedents in order to justify his own ruling. This is just nuts. Like you said, if McGlynn drags Bruen AND Miller into this we can get some sort of yea/nay on the NFA as well as any and all AWBs. 

 

To me it looks like McGlynn is going to be using the military test that the Easterbrook panel cooked up out of thin air.  If the judge does indeed go that route, it will lead right back to interest balancing under a different name.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2024 at 3:35 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

To me it looks like McGlynn is going to be using the military test that the Easterbrook panel cooked up out of thin air.  If the judge does indeed go that route, it will lead right back to interest balancing under a different name.  

even if they did the AR goes back to the 50's with the original AR10 development and FN-FAL as well. Heck some of the first semi-auto box fed rifles were almost 100 years ago........we are dealing with antiques at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  Read the beginning of that paragraph:

 

Quote

First, the endorsement affidavit is a voluntary benefit that exempts owners of certain ""assault weapons"" from otherwise applicable criminal penalties

 

They're saying that you won't be prosecuted because you didn't file an affidavit.  However, you will not be exempt from prosecution for owning an ""assault weapon"" if you didn't file an affidavit.  It's an attempt to be too cute by half.

 

 

Edited by Upholder
rewording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2024 at 3:35 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

To me it looks like McGlynn is going to be using the military test that the Easterbrook panel cooked up out of thin air.  If the judge does indeed go that route, it will lead right back to interest balancing under a different name.  

I think the key words in McGlynn's statement were "truly reserved for military use" with the emphasis on "truly." To me that signals a pretty high degree of skepticism toward Easterbrook's wholesale consignment of anything he doesn't like to the category of military weapons. McGlynn may put a pretty tight fence around the concept of "reserved for military use."

 

We'll know soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2024 at 4:06 PM, Upholder said:

No.  Read the beginning of that paragraph:

 

 

They're saying that you won't be prosecuted because you didn't file an affidavit.  However, you will not be exempt from prosecution for owning an """"assault weapon"""" if you didn't file an affidavit.  It's an attempt to be too cute by half.

 

 

 

Our side really needs to introduce a 9th amendment argument as well.   The affidavit is clearly pitting the 5th and 2nd amendments against each other.   This "cute" little dance step is further proof that the State knows they have an issue.  We must waive our 5th amendment rights in order to fully exercise our 2nd amendment rights.  That is why the 9th amendment was written.   

 

Sad, it just seems the lawyers always want to go down the familiar path. 

Edited by Dumak_from_arfcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2024 at 4:06 PM, Upholder said:

No.  Read the beginning of that paragraph:

 

 

They're saying that you won't be prosecuted because you didn't file an affidavit.  However, you will not be exempt from prosecution for owning an """assault weapon""" if you didn't file an affidavit.  It's an attempt to be too cute by half.

 

 


Wow, sounds like Mr.Haney type of agreement.

image.jpeg.4803fc2ef4e5ea70b70020c2963eee3b.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CA9 heard arguments in Miller v. Bonta yesterday. Panel sucked. Posted the link in the Miller v. Bonta thread. Haven't had time to listen to or digest them yet but based on what a lawyer who was there live tweeting, it didn't go well for Miller. They're trying to apply Miller v. US, the opposite of what Easterbrook did. I guess whatever mental gymnastics it takes... These judges already have a desired outcome, they just have to find a way to reach that outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2024 at 7:38 AM, skinnyb82 said:

They're trying to apply Miller v. US, the opposite of what Easterbrook did.

 

That could create a very distinct split between circuits that could help us in the end...

 

Personally, I believe Miller v US is and always was entirely flawed in itself and now is likely bad law post Heller/Bruen anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2024 at 7:38 AM, skinnyb82 said:

CA9 heard arguments in Miller v. Bonta yesterday. Panel sucked. Posted the link in the Miller v. Bonta thread. Haven't had time to listen to or digest them yet but based on what a lawyer who was there live tweeting, it didn't go well for Miller. They're trying to apply Miller v. US, the opposite of what Easterbrook did. I guess whatever mental gymnastics it takes... These judges already have a desired outcome, they just have to find a way to reach that outcome. 

They seemed to want to stay the case until Duncan v Bonta is decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2024 at 4:14 PM, ragsbo said:

Seems that all the courts want someone else to decide first and no one will, so they keep dragging it out. So much for swift justice

 

That is because they all know how they are bound to rule under Heller/Bruen but don't agree and don't like it, so they refuse to accept the precedent and delay, delay, delay...  It's truly childlike temper tantrum behavior from grown adults...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2024 at 3:51 PM, cbunt32 said:

They seemed to want to stay the case until Duncan v Bonta is decided.

Yep case is being held in abeyance, waiting for Duncan to be decided by the en banc court. Slays me they're playing games here. They expedited the appeal, expedited briefing, expedited orals, only to slam the brakes. This is a giant middle finger. 

20240127_101700.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/7/2024 at 9:28 AM, Molly B. said:

Has a date been set for the next status hearing? Or whatever happens next?

 

This was published last Saturday. I don't see a date certain, but perhaps it will be helpful.

 

Interesting that the state is trying to weasel their way out of defending the law (my take), and McGlynn isn't having it.

 

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/judge-not-interested-delaying-challenge-illinois-gun-ban

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...