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

[starwatcher]

Just ignore him.

 

If all he does is reaction videos, which is basically content theft. He's on the lowest spectrum of youtubers.

[cybermgk]

On 9/20/2024 at 8:48 PM, wdnshoots said:

What a joke. Everybody drop over there and give him a thumbs down and a comment.

That's what the joker wants.  He has NO engagement/views on his videos.  HE'S grifting here to get p***** off views.

[2A4Cook]

Where do they find these people?  Full auto or burst fire is absolutely essential to urban warfare.  It's a big part of the reason the Soviets won at Stalingrad.  Some this "expert" military small arms doctrine sounds like debates straight out of the 1950's.  The M1 Garand was developed in the 1930's, for Pete's sake -- a time when aerial bombing was still developing military "theory."  What was the end result for small arms doctrine in WWII?  The German Sturmgewehr, Russian AK47 and (a bit late to the party) the U.S. M14.  That this crap is still being argued in courts is laughable, but when judges and "activists" have no knowledge of military history, it's pretty easy to engage them in a "battle of the experts."

[yurimodin]

could be wose.....could have been Armed Scholar.....the clickbait king

[mab22]

Eventually people will stop going to his YouTube channel when they have been duped by the same thing a FEW times. He’s only hurting himself in the long run…. Pretty pathetic actually. 

On 9/30/2024 at 1:23 PM, yurimodin said:

could be wose.....could have been Armed Scholar.....the clickbait king

 

[yurimodin]

On 9/30/2024 at 2:03 PM, mab22 said:

Eventually people will stop going to his YouTube channel when they have been duped by the same thing a FEW times. He’s only hurting himself in the long run…. Pretty pathetic actually. 

 

I blocked his channel years ago

[davel501]

On 9/30/2024 at 10:04 PM, yurimodin said:

I blocked his channel years ago

 

Same. 

[JTHunter]

On 9/30/2024 at 10:04 PM, yurimodin said:

I blocked his channel years ago

 

Considering how slow my DSL is, I don't do much "you-tubing".  This is one guy I've never heard from before and the few seconds I watched makes me glad I never did !

What a putz !

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 10/1/2024 at 10:33 PM, JTHunter said:

 

Considering how slow my DSL is, I don't do much "you-tubing".  This is one guy I've never heard from before and the few seconds I watched makes me glad I never did !

What a putz !

Your not missing much, I hate youtube.  Provide the transcript or eliminate all the blabber. 

[Tvandermyde]

 

[EdDinIL]

Can we get a brief refresher on what happens after Judge McGlynn issues his verdict / ruling / finding / whatever the legal term is?  I assume whichever side loses will appeal the result.  Does that go to SCOTUS or to 7CA?  

[mab22]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:20 AM, EdDinIL said:

Can we get a brief refresher on what happens after Judge McGlynn issues his verdict / ruling / finding / whatever the legal term is?  I assume whichever side loses will appeal the result.  Does that go to SCOTUS or to 7CA?  

IF McGlynn issues a verdict in our favor, the first thing that will happen is the LGS's will be packed and the ISPFSB will be overwhelmed with purchases to clear.

So that's the first thing you can expect. 😉

 

 

[EdDinIL]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:43 AM, mab22 said:

IF McGlynn issues a verdict in our favor, the first thing that will happen is the LGS's will be packed and the ISPFSB will be overwhelmed with purchases to clear.

So that's the first thing you can expect. 😉

47 minutes later, 7CA issues an emergency stay, because freedom is bad.

[IH8IL]

On 10/15/2024 at 12:06 PM, EdDinIL said:

47 minutes later, 7CA issues an emergency stay, because freedom is bad.

Didn’t the judge do it right before a weekend?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:20 AM, EdDinIL said:

Can we get a brief refresher on what happens after Judge McGlynn issues his verdict / ruling / finding / whatever the legal term is?  I assume whichever side loses will appeal the result.  Does that go to SCOTUS or to 7CA?  

 

McGlynn can rule for us or against us.  If he rules for us, he can rule it all unconstitutional or only parts.  My guess is he is going to rule for us and declare it all unconstitutional, but stay his ruling for X amount of days pending appeal. 

 

I'd like to see another freedom week, but I don't think we are going to get one.  If we do get one, it will be short term, CA7 and Uncle Festerbrook will run to the court room and stomp on it. 

 

 Just be ready to order more mags or pickup stuff that may be sitting at an FFL. The window (if any) will be limited. 

[ragsbo]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:11 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

McGlynn can rule for us or against us.  If he rules for us, he can rule it all unconstitutional or only parts.  My guess is he is going to rule for us and declare it all unconstitutional, but stay his ruling for X amount of days pending appeal. 

 

I'd like to see another freedom week, but I don't think we are going to get one.  If we do get one, it will be short term, CA7 and Uncle Festerbrook will run to the court room and stomp on it. 

 

 Just be ready to order more mags or pickup stuff that may be sitting at an FFL. The window (if any) will be limited. 

They need to stop staying thier rulings since the liberals never do it! Rule it and let the fun begin then dragged your feet as much as possible when they try to appeal.

[skinnyb82]

On 10/16/2024 at 9:57 PM, ragsbo said:

They need to stop staying thier rulings since the liberals never do it! Rule it and let the fun begin then dragged your feet as much as possible when they try to appeal.

"Oh, we're gonna stay this because the government would be harmed.... The government says it needs more time...." Yeah no, the presumption that the government doesn't know exactly what it's doing needs to be abandoned. Courts always presume the government is acting in good faith when, in reality, it's in bad faith.

[ragsbo]

On 10/17/2024 at 4:34 PM, skinnyb82 said:

"Oh, we're gonna stay this because the government would be harmed.... The government says it needs more time...." Yeah no, the presumption that the government doesn't know exactly what it's doing needs to be abandoned. Courts always presume the government is acting in good faith when, in reality, it's in bad faith.

Government ALWAYS acts in it OWN behalf and on one else's . What ever gets, keeps and increases their power over everything

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 10/17/2024 at 4:41 PM, ragsbo said:

Government ALWAYS acts in it OWN behalf and on one else's . What ever gets, keeps and increases their power over everything

 

The fed courts are important.  President nominates judges and they need confirmed in the Senate. Here in IL, Governors buy the state judges.  Elections matter.  

 

What is left of IL gunowners don't give enough of a ****.   To many 2A primary concern voters have fled the state.  I don't blame them, if I could leave, I'd be across the border into Wisconsin faster than The Flash. 

[Upholder]

 

06916079692.pdf - The Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact

[Jeffrey]

Let me guess, we have to pass it to find out what is in it?

[Tvandermyde]

euler -- get it so I can see it on my pacer feed

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 10/21/2024 at 2:12 PM, Tvandermyde said:

euler -- get it so I can see it on my pacer feed

 

Hopefully this link works off of Bishop's X feed.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ambdQDNMFGoWF855X8t_X2JHx-2HcYI5/view

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Quote

Bishop On Air
@BishopOnAir
Among the proposed findings of fact from the state defendants in the challenge against Illinois' gun ban: 
* The firearms, accessories, and ammunition the Act restricts are predominantly useful in military service and unusually dangerous.
* The semiautomatic AR-platform rifles the Act restricts are functionally identical to the M16 and M4 rifles used by the U.S. military except for the absence of a burst- or automatic-fire setting.
* The semiautomatic AK-47 rifles the Act restricts are functionally identical to the AK-47 rifles used by militaries around the world except for the absence of an automatic fire setting.
* Other rifles restricted by the Act are semiautomatic versions of submachineguns designed for military and law enforcement use.
* The .50 caliber rifles and ammunition the Act restricts were designed for and are employed by the military.
* Many of the pistols the Act restricts are either AR- or AK-platform firearms or semiautomatic versions of submachineguns.
* The shotguns the Act restricts are a narrow sub-category of large capacity, semiautomatic shotguns.
* The firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices the Act restricts are not commonly used for lawful self-defense.
* Rifles of any kind are rarely used in self-defense. 
* The firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices the Act regulates are not well-suited for self-defense.
* Plaintiffs lack reliable, empirical evidence that the firearms and magazines restricted by the Act are used in self-defense.
* The firearms and magazines regulated by the Act are not well-suited for hunting.
* The firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices the Act restricts pose unprecedented threats to public safety.
* The use of "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines are major factors in the rise of mass shooting violence.
* Large capacity magazines are driving up the shooting lethality rate in Chicago and other large cities.
* There is a historical tradition in this nation of regulating firearms that are dangerous or unusual.

 

The state really needs to have Heller defined for them like they are a bunch of 2 year olds.  Self-defense isn't the test. Self-defense is a descriptor of Heller's reference to lawful activity. 

 

And there is that phantom "or" that keeps popping up in Heller's in dangerous and unusual.    

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Quote

 

Bishop On Air
@BishopOnAir
Another filing from the state defendants just filed in the Illinois gun ban case also has "proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law." The 67 page filing can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bmkMBovxPsZ4OuwdkBjwtzu5zL7VFvK7/view?usp=sharing

Among the arguments: 
* Plaintiffs fail to meet the heightened standard for facial challenges.
* Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct is not protected by the Second Amendment’s text.
* Large capacity magazines and attachments are unnecessary accessories. 
* None of the restricted items are like the “Arms” protected by the text.
* Items restricted by the Act were designed for military combat.
* Their lethality far exceeds what is commonly used for self-defense.
* Plaintiffs’ ahistorical interpretations of the text must be rejected.
* The Second Amendment right is not a right to “any weapon whatsoever.”
* Sales trends do not define constitutional text.
* The Act is consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition of regulation.
* The Act responds to unprecedented societal concerns.
* The optional registration process easily survives rational basis review. 
* Any injunction must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending appeal.

 

 

There was a second filing- Conlusions of Law:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bmkMBovxPsZ4OuwdkBjwtzu5zL7VFvK7/view

 

 

Edited October 21, 2024 at 08:50 PM by Dumak_from_arfcom

[ealcala31]

Who listened to Bishop on Air this morning? He said the state hasn't filed anything YET, but we will be waiting. They really think taking away rights is a game. How could they be taken seriously at this point, 3k pages...

[Upholder]

 

[RECarry]

Does Pritzker and his dump truck full of excuses aspire to be memorialized on Mount Lardmore?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

IMO, this 3.5K+ document dump is an attempt to delay McGlynn's ruling.  It will take time to review close to 4000 pages of bull****. 

[springfield shooter]

"The semiautomatic AR-platform rifles the Act restricts are functionally identical to the M16 and M4 rifles used by the U.S. military except for the absence of a burst- or automatic-fire setting."

 

That's like saying a prop plane is the same as a jet....except for the absence of a jet engine.