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

[Maxon Shooters]

If SCOTUS grants cert to Snope (Maryland AWB), I expect all other litigation to pause.  That gives us a July 2025 decision.

If we go through 7th, we could get a decision by May. We could win there, and if we do, the state probably doesnt appeal to SCOTUS for the same reason they didn’t in concealed carry.  If no Snope, and we lose in 7th,we go to SCOTUS next term, with a decision by July 2026.

 

-dan e

 

Edited November 9, 2024 at 12:16 AM by Maxon Shooters
2026, not 2025

[ragsbo]

On 11/8/2024 at 6:00 PM, Maxon Shooters said:

If SCOTUS grants cert to Snope (Maryland AWB), I expect all other litigation to pause.  That gives us a July 2025 decision.

If we go through 7th, we could get a decision by May. We could win there, and if we do, the state probably doesnt appeal to SCOTUS for the same reason they didn’t in concealed carry.  If no Snope, and we lose in 7th,we go to SCOTUS next term, with a decision by July 2025.

 

-dan e

 

SO you are saying that this crap will not be going anywhere anytime soon and we are still screwed! Great ruling but------------- still frustrating.

[2A4Cook]

And the stay is pretty much automatic ... absolute scum.

[Maxon Shooters]

On 11/8/2024 at 7:05 PM, ragsbo said:

SO you are saying that this crap will not be going anywhere anytime soon and we are still screwed! Great ruling but------------- still frustrating.

The ruling forms a powerful record that may be persuasive in the 7th and SCOTUS on related cases.  Yes, another Freedom Week would have been nice, but make no mistake:  this is a big win that will pay dividends down the road.  I, too, am astonished that pre-trial maneuvers chewed up the better part of a year and a bunch of $.  

-dan e

[2A4Cook]

On 11/8/2024 at 6:15 PM, Maxon Shooters said:

The ruling forms a powerful record that may be persuasive in the 7th and SCOTUS on related cases.  Yes, another Freedom Week would have been nice, but make no mistake:  this is a big win that will pay dividends down the road.  I, too, am astonished that pre-trial maneuvers chewed up the better part of a year and a bunch of $.  

-dan e

It's easy for them, as they're pros at working the system.  The courts grant the state (and city, in those courts) delays, continuances, extensions and exemption from consequences that they would NEVER grant private citizens.  It is extremely unfair, obviously.  All the while, they are granted license to continue depriving us of our rights under color of "law."  

[cybermgk]

4 boxes diner vid is up

 

 

[springfield shooter]

On 11/8/2024 at 5:42 PM, Molly B. said:

Just like clock work! Wouldn't have expected anything else from them.  They can't seem to keep themselves from infringing on the rights of others.  Our day is coming though.

 

That was quick. It's almost like the state knew they'd lose in front of a judge that respects the Constitution.

[ragsbo]

I am a bit confused. WHO issued the stay and is it only good for 30 days? Then it has to be reissued or what?

[Monty80]

On 11/8/2024 at 7:07 PM, ragsbo said:

I am a bit confused. WHO issued the stay and is it only good for 30 days? Then it has to be reissued or what?

Illinois Southern District Judge Stephen McGlynn (Federal judge) found that PICA is unconstitutional. He issued a permanent injunction against it but also stayed the injunction for 30 days.  

[cybermgk]

On 11/8/2024 at 7:07 PM, ragsbo said:

I am a bit confused. WHO issued the stay and is it only good for 30 days? Then it has to be reissued or what?

Judge McGlynn who tried the case in his Distrrict Court ruled law Unconstitutional, whole law.

 

Judge McGlynn enjoined the State from enforcing it.

 

Judge McGlynn then stayed his own enjoinment for 30 days

 

This gives the chance for the State to appeal the decision and ask the aappeals court for a longer stay.

 

If they don't, or the Appeals court refuses to issue a stay of their own, the law is no longer in effect in 30 days.

 

It really comes down to what panel is put together for the State's appeal (which they already filed.

[Monty80]

^^^He explained it better.

[Upholder]

The state's appeal: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.260.0.pdf

 

Edited November 9, 2024 at 01:58 AM by Upholder

[stockboyy]

and still More irreparable harm

[Howard Roark]

I want to buy a semi-auto magazine fed 12ga tactical shotgun.  I'm good-to-go now, ammiright?  😀

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 11/8/2024 at 8:21 PM, Howard Roark said:

I want to buy a semi-auto magazine fed 12ga tactical shotgun.  I'm good-to-go now, ammiright?  😀

 

Not sure if serious...

 

If you are serious the answer is no. The law is still in effect. 

Edited November 9, 2024 at 02:27 AM by Dumak_from_arfcom

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

I personally feel that we didn't get a freedom week because of what the state pulled with the judge in Chicago. Where they blamed the judge for the shooting/murders that occurred on the L train.

 

At the time I felt that was a message to McGlynn to stay his ruling. If he let us have a freedom week, they'd blame him and set the media to go after him if there was any PICA banned firearms used in crimes.  

[Howard Roark]

On 11/8/2024 at 8:27 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Not sure if serious...

 

If you are serious the answer is no. The law is still in effect. 

 

Somebody DM me when I'm good-to-go, mmkay? I can't wait all day...  /jk

[splitaxe]

What is the legal reasoning behind staying the order?  Does the 7th have to approach it differently, or is it so they don’t immediately knee jerk apply their own stay indefinitely? 
 

Or is there another reason entirely? 

Edited November 9, 2024 at 03:16 AM by splitaxe

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

I'm on page 5 of the ruling.  I'm already impressed. 

[mab22]

On 11/8/2024 at 8:39 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I personally feel that we didn't get a freedom week because of what the state pulled with the judge in Chicago. Where they blamed the judge for the shooting/murders that occurred on the L train.

 

At the time I felt that was a message to McGlynn to stay his ruling. If he let us have a freedom week, they'd blame him and set the media to go after him if there was any PICA banned firearms used in crimes.  

He is a federal judge, his appointment is lifetime, so what would he care?
 

[mab22]

Is there a PDF copy of the ruling available?

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 11/8/2024 at 11:14 PM, mab22 said:

Is there a PDF copy of the ruling available?

 

 

Molly B - page 64 about halfway down. left a link to a pdf.  

 

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

P45.  Really great so far.   He is taking all of the big dissents in Heller and Bruen and trashing them.  So he isn't falling for the 7th's ploy to relitigate Heller and Bruen. 

 

P48. He is beginning to dismantle Friedman and wow... is it good.

 

P74 He uses Sotomayor's dissent in Bianchi citing the Las Vegas shooting was done with "commonly available semiautomatic rifles".  HAHAHAH! 

 

P91  It is clear now that during oral testimony Judge McGlynn had a plan to deal with the military use vs civilian use argument set by the 7th

 

P108   Even with a bump stock, the AR15 is not a machine gun!   

 

P111  Even though ARs and M16s look alike - they are not the same weapons.  (Important for the ninnies on the 7th I guess)

 

P116  Gun violence is not an excuse to restrict the 2nd amendment

 

p118 Plaintiffs meet the burden under Friedman that MSR type rifles are arms protected by the second amendment. This was really really good - masterclass takedown of Friedman. 

 

p123  The burden now falls to the government to come up with history and tradition

 

p129  It looks like he takes a shot at the military test set by the 7th.  He cites Justice Kavanaugh that judges shouldn't use policy preferences to come up with new balancing tests that fit a judge's own policy beliefs.

 

p151  The government's citations of historic analogs doesn't meet the how and why questions in Bruen.

 

p153 The government's desire to prevent mass shootings does not rise to the level of eliminating constitutional rights that began at the founding.   

 

p155 "unprecedented society concerns" were rejected in Heller and Bruen

 

p156 SCOTUS determined that handguns were in common use in Heller and so DC could not restrict them.  Semi-auto rifles are not a new invention. 

 

P156 The government is wrong. Mass shootings are not a recent problem for American society.  Mass shootings are, unfortunately, an American tradition. (that is going to ruffle the 7th)

 

p156 The government has not met its burden to show that PICA's expansive ban meets Bruen's required history and tradition. 

 

p163 The vagueness issue got slapped down. 

 

p164 The court isn't restricted to enjoining enforcement only against named plaintiffs as the government argues.

 

p165  Looks like the government was asking for the judge to only declare portions of PICA unconstitutional and not the entire law.  He gives his reasons, or lack of reasons by the government, for not doing that. 

 

p166 "PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the second amendment and must be enjoined. Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed  right of self-defense as a means of offense. " 

 

p167  McGlynn goes F'ing based here.  He talks of elites trying to bring about a post-constitutional era in which citizens rights are based on convenience to the ruling class.  He further states that seeking ancient laws in order to justify recent infringements without taking in their historic context is nonsense.  So, he obviously doesn't like the state citing colonial laws that are now considered to be unconstitutionally racist.  He makes a negative statement about using the mantra "no right is absolute" and that it should not be used to make rights subject to the whims of officials or judges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Molly B.]

Thank you for this breakdown!

[steveTA84]

On 11/9/2024 at 12:42 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

P116  Gun violence is not an excuse to restrict the 2nd amendment

Word!

[soundguy]

Looking forward on the morning after hearing this great news...

 

How will this affect Cook County, Highland Park, and other Illinois Home Rule cities with gun and magazine bans?

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

[steveTA84]

 

[2smartby1/2]

Quote

Therefore, in relation to the weapons banned by PICA, this Court defines common use as presumptively encompassing: any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise “dangerous and unusual.” Moreover, for the sake of clarity, the Court will also include essential features (like magazines) and nonessential features that increase operability, accuracy, or safety (like the various attachments prohibited by PICA) as items that are presumptively in common use.

Key line right there on page 75.

I think McGlynn had mentioned suppressors as safety items during the trial. 

[cybermgk]

A little surprised by this in the decision, but I understand the dance McGlynn was doing with the 7th's prior decision.

 

Therefore, Illinois can lawfully ban .50 caliber weapons and ammunition, belt-fed weapons, and grenade launchers in accordance with Bevis. As stated above, this Court makes no determination on whether or not PICA can constitutionally ban devices that increase a weapon’s rate of fire (e.g., bump stocks, binary triggers, and the like).

 

It is the only part of PICA he said COULD be law (and if his decision holds, it would take another law passed, as he enjoined the entire law).

[HeavyDuty]

Former resident popping in to offer congratulations, at least partial ones!