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

TomKoz Member

TomKoz

Posted
Posted

 

  Quote

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).

 

Funny, I don’t recall the 2A saying .50 caliber weapons and ammunition, belt-fed weapons, and grenade launchers were not included??

mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted
On 11/9/2024 at 5:27 PM, TomKoz said:

 

 

  Quote

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).

 

Funny, I don’t recall the 2A saying .50 caliber weapons and ammunition, belt-fed weapons, and grenade launchers were not included??

 

I'd go so far as to say .50 and .68 were common calibers  during the founding era.

 

 

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 11/9/2024 at 5:54 PM, mauserme said:

 

I'd go so far as to say .50 and .68 were common calibers  during the founding era.

 

 

Yep,
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2420/weapons-in-the-american-revolution/

 

Quote

Flintlock Muskets

By the time of the revolution, flintlocks had long been the most common kind of firearm.

The flintlock musket was the primary weapon of 18th-century European armies and was therefore used by both sides during the American Revolution. A musket was a muzzle-loading, smoothbore weapon that fired a large lead ball with reasonably decent accuracy. By the 1770s, a typical musket weighed about 10 lbs (4.5 kg), was about 5 ft (152 cm) in length, and had a caliber of about .75 (1.9 cm). A typical lead ball weighed about an ounce (28 g). As the name 'flintlock musket' suggests, such weapons relied on a flintlock mechanism to fire.

 

Quote

Types of Muskets

The standard musket of the British army was the British Land Pattern Musket, better known as the 'Brown Bess'. This .75 caliber flintlock musket was introduced to the British army in 1722 and remained in use until 1838. Initially, it had a 46-inch-long (116 cm) barrel, although this was shortened to about 39 inches (99 cm) by the late 1770s. The Brown Bess utilized a 'bridle' to support the flash pan, as well as a steel ramrod instead of a wooden one – changes which increased the musket's efficiency and durability. The nickname 'Brown Bess' is likely derived from the brownish color of the musket's barrel, with the name 'Bess' perhaps being a corruption of the term 'buss' as in 'blunderbuss' (Boatner, 118). There is also speculation that the musket was named after Queen Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558-1603), who was often called 'Good Queen Bess', although this has been disputed since the musket was first manufactured over a hundred years after her reign. The Brown Bess, like all military muskets, could be fixed with a 16-inch (40 cm) bayonet, allowing it to be used in close-quarter combat.

 

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
Regarding the 3,585 pages that the state dumped on McGlynn on October 21:
On October 21, 2024 at 02:12 PM (CDT), Tvandermyde said:→
euler -- get it so I can see it on my pacer feed

I just totaled how much it would cost if I were to buy the documents for CourtListener.

$103.90

If they were something good that I wanted, maybe it would happen, but they're something bad that I don't, so it's not.
Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 11/10/2024 at 4:38 PM, cybermgk said:

Agree on the 50 cal

 

But read where he discusses it.  He was hamstrung by that's idiotic Bevis decision that they more or less forced him to use.

 

McGlynn had to reconcile the Bevis BS with Heller and Bruen, and what he ruled was amazing.   He found himself an out that he didn't have enough information on .50 so he is siding with us in enjoining the entire law. 

 

If I had to give McGlynn a test score, I'd give this one a 97/100.   It was a little light on right to repair.  Maybe he spends more time on .50 cartridges vs .50 muzzle loaders.  There was one other thing that I'd ding him for, but I can't remember what it was off the top of my head.   

 

Maybe it wasn't a grand slam, but he hit a 3 run triple even with his hands tied from Bevis. 

Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 11/13/2024 at 5:30 PM, Yas said:

Re McGlynn and 30 rounds

 

 

 

anyone think Magpui may have sold more than 300,000 40 round straight magazines or 60 round drum AR magazines so far? 

 

While I agree, McGlynn had to walk a tight rope between the 7th's BS military test and Bruen/Heller.  

 

Doing so, he came up with a great ruling, and he enjoined the law and declared it all unconstitutional. 

 

Next, I wouldn't blame that on McGlynn.  The SCOTUS could have come up with a hard figure and ruled 300k or more = in common use. 

TomKoz Member

TomKoz

Posted
Posted

IF they ban something then how could it ever even be considered “in common use” as the people would never legally be allowed to obtain!

 

The “in common use” argument is therefore flawed reasoning / logic.   What is preventing the anti-2A’s from now banning arms that have yet to be invented?   Said arms would never have a chance of being “in common use”.

 

The “dangerous and unusual” is also flawed.

Any arms not currently “in common use” or not even yet invented could be considered “unusual”.

 

BEST argument Ever ?  “Shall Not be Infringed” !   They need to stick to that one !!

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 11/13/2024 at 11:45 PM, TomKoz said:

What is preventing the anti-2A’s from now banning arms that have yet to be invented?   Said arms would never have a chance of being “in common use”.

I'm still waiting for my phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.  Do not give them any ideas.

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted (edited)
On November 12, the 7th Circuit docketed the constituent appeals.

On November 15, the court consolidated the appeals into Barnett and suspended briefing due to a deficient district judgment (granting no relief), similar to what it did for Schoenthal previously. (consolidated docket)

Edited by Euler
MrTriple Member

MrTriple

Posted
Posted
On 11/15/2024 at 8:38 PM, Euler said:

On November 12, the 7th Circuit docketed the constituent appeals.

On November 15, the court consolidated the appeals into Barnett and suspended briefing due to a deficient district judgment (granting no relief), similar to what it did for Schoenthal previously. (consolidated docket)
 

I could take this to be either good or bad news depending on how one reads it.

 

What does this mean in terms of McGlynn's final judgment?

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
It's just paperwork. McGlynn wrote a judgment saying there is (would be) an injunction, but he didn't actually issue the injunction, probably because the judgment was stayed for 30 days.
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On November 15, unsurprisingly, the state asked the appeals court to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal. (That would be the injunction that the appeals court earlier decided was deficient.)
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted
On 11/15/2024 at 10:13 PM, Euler said:

It's just paperwork. McGlynn wrote a judgment saying there is (would be) an injunction, but he didn't actually issue the injunction, probably because the judgment was stayed for 30 days.

I disagree

 

From the Decision

 

Capture.thumb.JPG.88a296213fc2f1761b112112ff699507.JPG

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted (edited)

Does that mean I can enter into a purchase agreement NOW with a final TRANSFER DATE of 12/09/2024 for whatever I want, that's legal on 12/09/2024?

... I think I just realized how to pull that off!! 😁

 

Edited by mab22
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 11/19/2024 at 3:20 PM, mab22 said:

Does that mean I can enter into a purchase agreement NOW with a final TRANSFER DATE of 12/09/2024 for whatever I want, that's legal on 12/09/2024?

 

Assuming the 7th Circuit doesn't issue a stay before then, yes.

 

I fully expect them to issue a stay before then.

Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 11/15/2024 at 5:12 PM, starwatcher said:

Jesus, the first sentence is interest balancing.

 

It is all they have.  They've used interest balancing for decades. They'll use it until it doesn't work.  Those heartstrings need pulling. 

 

It is why the 7th concocted that new interest balancing in the form of the military test.  Good gun v bad guns.  Until it gets slapped the F down, the antis will run with it. 

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On November 19, 2024 at 10:33 AM CST, cybermgk said:→
...
I disagree

From the Decision
...

The injunction has to be set forth in a document separate from the court's opinion. Generating such a document is just paperwork.
  • 2 weeks later...

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   0 members

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