Jump to content

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

Upholder

By Upholder
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

JTHunter Member

JTHunter

Posted
Posted
On 3/6/2024 at 10:28 PM, mab22 said:

Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 15, 2024, for all respondents.
 

How fitting that is tax day….

 

Well, all these delays are getting to be rather "taxing" on our patience. 😉

ragsbo Member

ragsbo

Posted
Posted
On 3/6/2024 at 11:02 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Well, all these delays are getting to be rather "taxing" on our patience. 😉

A right delayed is a right denied! Time to stop kicking this down the road and start throwing these unconstitutional laws out

JTHunter Member

JTHunter

Posted
Posted
On 3/7/2024 at 2:50 PM, ragsbo said:

A right delayed is a right denied! Time to stop kicking this down the road and start throwing these unconstitutional laws out

 

Agreed.

The problem is the glacial pace (as well as the animosity) of the court systems.

Drylok Member

Drylok

Posted
Posted

Holy cow! That reminds me I forgot to get the mail yesterday, our renewal of Illinois sheriff association packet should be in there! 

  • 2 weeks later...
ragsbo Member

ragsbo

Posted
Posted
On 4/2/2024 at 7:32 PM, Euler said:

On April 2, the judge set a scheduling conference on April 11 to determine the timeline for discovery.
 

another meeting about the meeting about the meeting about having a meeting about the meeting

  • 2 weeks later...
Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
Posted

179

Apr 11, 2024

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stephen P. McGlynn: Scheduling Conference held on 4/11/2024. Sean Brady participated on behalf of the FFL Illinois Plaintiffs. Tom Maag participated on behalf of the Langley Plaintiffs. Andrew Lothson, James Vogts and Mariel Brookins participated on behalf of the Barnett Plaintiffs. David Sigale and Will Bergstrom participated on behalf of the Harrel Plaintiffs. Christopher Wells and Kathryn Hunt Muse participated on behalf of Defendants Kwame Raoul, Jay Robert Pritzker, and Brendan Kelly. Thomas Ysursa participated on behalf of the St. Clair County Defendants. Katherine Asfour participated on behalf of the Randolph County Defendants. Mike Schag participated on behalf of Crawford County Defendants. In accordance with the Court's Order issued during the Status/Scheduling Conference, parties shall submit their expert reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) no later than 5/10/2024. Parties shall carbon copy the Court when submitting these reports via the Courts electronic inbox (SPMpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov). Follow-up status conference to be held on 5/16/2024 at 1:30 PM via Zoom video. Parties will receive a Zoom invitation via e-mail. (Court Reporter N/A.) (jsm2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/11/2024)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66755267/barnett-v-raoul/?page=2

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted

Is there any precedent for SCOTUS to allow fully-litigated but split circuit decisions about the same legal concept to remain split?  In other words, leaving the details to the states affected by each circuit?  (Written like the not-lawyer I am.)

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 4/17/2024 at 2:11 PM, EdDinIL said:

Is there any precedent for SCOTUS to allow fully-litigated but split circuit decisions about the same legal concept to remain split?  In other words, leaving the details to the states affected by each circuit?  (Written like the not-lawyer I am.)

They don't even need a district split, they CAN butt in on an interlocutory basis but they seem to always decide not to for some unknown imaginary reasons?

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 4/17/2024 at 3:14 PM, yurimodin said:

They don't even need a district split, they CAN butt in on an interlocutory basis but they seem to always decide not to for some unknown imaginary reasons?

I was thinking the opposite, though.  What if they decide to sit this out completely and just let the various circuits work out the details?

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 4/17/2024 at 3:59 PM, EdDinIL said:

I was thinking the opposite, though.  What if they decide to sit this out completely and just let the various circuits work out the details?

They can technically do as much or as little as they want......it is called Supreme after all.

Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 4/17/2024 at 4:21 PM, yurimodin said:

They can technically do as much or as little as they want......it is called Supreme after all.

 

This.

 

Frankly I think our side should ask SCOTUS to send the lower courts an instructional flow chart as to how to apply Heller and Bruen.  

 

 

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 4/18/2024 at 7:20 AM, Plinkermostly said:

OR just tell them: shall not infringe.

Part of me thinks they just don't care. After 90+ years of unconstitutional infringements as long as they still get paid 200K+ and still live in their gated communities away from the problems of the peasant class (who can't be trusted with these weapons of war because we know better after all) then they are in absolutely no hurry. 

ragsbo Member

ragsbo

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/17/2024 at 4:21 PM, yurimodin said:

They can technically do as much or as little as they want......it is called Supreme after all.

What is hurting them (in my opinion) is that they refuse to enforce the rulings they make. The lower courts just thumb their noses at them. The legislatures (state and federal) thumb their noses at them. Even biteme is doing it with the loan forgiveness. They need to grow a back bone and start backing their decisions with something besides a piece of worthless paper and makes them nothing but a joke

 

Edited by ragsbo
yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 4/18/2024 at 10:56 AM, ragsbo said:

What is hurting them (in my opinion) is that they refuse to enforce the rulings they make. The lower courts just thumb their noses at them. The legislatures (state and federal) thumb their noses at them. Even biteme is doing it with the loan forgiveness. They need to grow a back bone and start backing their decisions with something besides a piece of worthless paper and makes them nothing but a joke

 

The way they are going SCOTUS will just be a ceremonial position like the British monarchy. Here I thought we had 4 branches of govt if you count agencies. Turns out we really only have 2 branches. The executive branch and the bureaucracy branch. Congress is the most worthless they have ever been and SCOTUS is the most nutless that they have ever been. Then again if you go back far enough SCOTUS let slavery, segregation, and even forced eugenics sterilizations stand so maybe infringing rights is just their jam.

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 4/18/2024 at 10:56 AM, ragsbo said:

What is hurting them (in my opinion) is that they refuse to enforce the rulings they make. The lower courts just thumb their noses at them. The legislatures (state and federal) thumb their noses at them. Even biteme is doing it with the loan forgiveness. They need to grow a back bone and start backing their decisions with something besides a piece of worthless paper and makes them nothing but a joke

 

 

How would they enforce a ruling or decision?

 

Vodoun da Vinci Member

Vodoun da Vinci

Posted
Posted
Quote

The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings. For example, many public schools held classroom prayers long after the Court had banned government-sponsored religious activities. 

 

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/the-judiciary/the-supreme-court-in-operation#:~:text=The Supreme Court has no,to carry out its rulings.

 

VooDoo

Billy Bob Welcome New Member

Billy Bob

Posted
Posted (edited)

In this particular instance, the Supreme Court does have some enforcement power, even if it's indirect. If the Court were to find  this law unconstitutional, any police agencies or officers that tried to enforce it or a similar replacement law could find themselves in deep doo doo -- no qualified immunity, for starters, and also potential federal charges for violating civil rights under color of law.

 

There's a seven year statue of limitations on that charge in cases not involving death, so the fact that there is currently an anti-gun Attorney General would be little comfort to would be violators.

Edited by Billy Bob

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...