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

[Kingcreek]

On 11/27/2024 at 10:49 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Plaintiff opposition to the State's request for a stay. 

 

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca7.52807/gov.uscourts.ca7.52807.11.0.pdf

Looks pretty solid in my limited experience.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 11/29/2024 at 10:50 AM, Kingcreek said:

Looks pretty solid in my limited experience.

 

It is. But we are dealing with the 7th.  It isn't the same court that it was a decade ago when they bent the knee to SCOTUS. 

[EdDinIL]

Does 7CA need to put anything on their calendar for this, or can they just announce the stay (or a denial of the state's request) at any point between now and 12/09?  I assume whatever happens will occur this week, unless they want to be really sneaky and trap a whole bunch of Freedom Week II purchases in their waiting period.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 12/2/2024 at 11:57 AM, EdDinIL said:

Does 7CA need to put anything on their calendar for this, or can they just announce the stay (or a denial of the state's request) at any point between now and 12/09?  I assume whatever happens will occur this week, unless they want to be really sneaky and trap a whole bunch of Freedom Week II purchases in their waiting period.

 

I'd expect something no later than the 11th.   If they do it by the 11th they'll effectively block transfers because of the 72 hour wait.  

 

 

[mab22]

On 12/2/2024 at 8:39 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I'd expect something no later than the 11th.   If they do it by the 11th they'll effectively block transfers because of the 72 hour wait.  

 

 

I will wait to post my question about the 3 day wait and purchases until the 6th, I think...

[EdDinIL]

On 12/3/2024 at 12:44 PM, mab22 said:

I will wait to post my question about the 3 day wait and purchases until the 6th, I think...

I think I know what your question will be, and that's why I think it'll be by the 9th to cut your creativeness off at the knees.

[mab22]

On 12/3/2024 at 2:19 PM, EdDinIL said:

I think I know what your question will be, and that's why I think it'll be by the 9th to cut your creativeness off at the knees.

🤷‍♂️WHAT??? 😎

So based on the response the plaintiffs submitted there are rules that have to be followed and it sounds like Kwame screwed it up.
It will be a crap shoot if the appellate court kicks it back or extends the time and kicks or back or doesn't kick it back or doesn't extend the stay. 

 

 

 

[EdDinIL]

On 12/3/2024 at 4:14 PM, mab22 said:

🤷‍♂️WHAT??? 😎
 

I assumed your question was along the lines of "Can you initiate the sale process, BG check and waiting period on the 6th so you can pick up the item as soon as Freedom Week II starts?"

 

As for the rules, yes, it does seem the state skipped a step or two, but this is Ilinois and 7CA, so they may apply the concept of Praecepta tibi sed non mihi* to the plaintiff's opposition....

 

*Rules for thee but not for me.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

I think we are going to get hit with a double whammy. 

 

I believe the 7th is going to send the decision back to McGlynn AND put a stay on his injunction through the appeals process. 

 

 

[EdDinIL]

On 12/3/2024 at 7:40 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I think we are going to get hit with a double whammy. 

 

I believe the 7th is going to send the decision back to McGlynn AND put a stay on his injunction through the appeals process. 

 

If 7CA sends it back to McGlynn, doesn't that mean the appeal was successful, even temporarily, and no injunction would exist to be stayed, because McGlynn's original judgment was wiped out?  

 

What would McGlynn's options be?  Rewrite the decision per the directions of 7CA so the plaintiffs can appeal it to SCOTUS?

[gunuser17]

The only way that I know of for the 7th Circuit to send this case back to the district court at this time is to reverse some or all of the district court's judgment.  If that happens, then that decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court.  No such reversal is even under consideration at this time since the case has not been briefed on the merits fully yet.   That is separate and apart from whether the 7th enters a stay of the judgment pending appeal.  The only two apparent options right now open seem to be entering a stay or refusing to do so and if the 7th refuses to enter a stay, then the district court's injunction should go into force.

[bcook619]

Did the ruling also wipe out the registration requirement?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 12/4/2024 at 10:51 AM, gunuser17 said:

The only way that I know of for the 7th Circuit to send this case back to the district court at this time is to reverse some or all of the district court's judgment.  If that happens, then that decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court.  No such reversal is even under consideration at this time since the case has not been briefed on the merits fully yet.   That is separate and apart from whether the 7th enters a stay of the judgment pending appeal.  The only two apparent options right now open seem to be entering a stay or refusing to do so and if the 7th refuses to enter a stay, then the district court's injunction should go into force.

 

There is talk that the 7th is going to order that McGlynn's decision is deficient. 

 

It is a way to stall.  Then SCOTUS takes up the Maryland case and our cases likely go on hold. 

[Upholder]

On 12/4/2024 at 11:09 AM, bcook619 said:

Did the ruling also wipe out the registration requirement?

 

Yes.  It permanently enjoined all of PICA, subject to the 30 day stay (and any additional action from the Seventh Circuit).

 

[springfield shooter]

On 12/4/2024 at 11:47 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

There is talk that the 7th is going to order that McGlynn's decision is deficient. 

 

It is a way to stall.  Then SCOTUS takes up the Maryland case and our cases likely go on hold. 

 

If SCOTUS grants cert to the Maryland case, is there any way they could fold ours into it?

[Upholder]

If SCOTUS grants cert to Snopes, it is likely that ours would be held pending the outcome of that case.  If they hold it, once Snopes is handed down, it would be cited as an authority to the Seventh for their decision.  In theory, if they are playing by the rules (1), they would at that time dismiss the appeal and the permanent injunction would be in effect.

If the Seventh Circuit decides to proceed while SCOTUS is deliberating on Snopes, when it is appealed by us to SCOTUS, it is likely at that time that it would be held by SCOTUS until the outcome of Snopes and then GVR'd back to the Seventh Circuit.

 

 

(1) Of course we all know they are playing dirty pool or we wouldn't be discussing any of this.  We may need to then appeal to SCOTUS anyway to get them to slap Easterbrook down.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2024 at 08:06 PM by Upholder
typo

[mab22]

On 12/4/2024 at 2:05 PM, Upholder said:

If SCOTUS grants cert to Snopes, it is likely that ours would be held pending the outcome of that case.  If they hold it, once Snopes is handed down, it would be cited as an authority to the Seventh for their decision.  In theory, if they are playing by the rules (1), they would at that time dismiss the appeal and the permanent injunction would be in effect.

If the Seventh Circuit decides to proceed while SCOTUS is deliberating on Snopes, when it is appealed by us to SCOTUS, it is likely at that time that it would be held by SCOTUS until the outcome of Snopes and then GVR'd back to the Seventh Circuit.

 

 

(1) Of course we all know they are playing dirty pool or we wouldn't be discussing any of this.  We may need to then appeal to SCOTUS anyway to get them to slap Easterbrook down.

 

 

So your looking at about a minimum of 8 more months of the bans, even if SCOTUS strikes it down, longer if the appeals court has to do an analysis based on the SCOTUS decision. Which gives the other side about a 3 year win, and it cost them nothing, not a single political loss.

And people will still insist we won somehow....

[SiliconSorcerer]

If someone was waiting on this based on an arrest aren't they guaranteed a fast trial? 

[Upholder]

I will point out again that the states fought the ramifications of Brown v. Board of Education for a decade before it finally took.

 

3 years is optimistic in my opinion.

[steveTA84]

Meanwhile, looks like people are gonna start getting nailed in Cook Co

 

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/12/03/new-cook-county-prosecutor-vows-crackdown-on-assault-weapons-n1227040

 

Eileen O’Neill Burke, who was sworn in last weekend, says Cook County's positives are being "overshadowed by crime right now", which is true enough. But Burke's tough-on-crime stance extends far beyond going after violent criminals. In her first comments to the press on Monday she made it clear that her office will be prosecuting far more non-violent, possessory offenses than her predecessor Kim Foxx. 

O’Neill Burke called the state’s "assault weapons" ban — which is being challenged in a downstate federal court — a top tool to address Chicago gun violence. 

“There is no doubt in my mind that the appellate courts are going to uphold our ban,” O’Neill Burke said. “Starting today, we are treating the possession of these weapons with the seriousness they demand.”

[Euler]

On December 4, 2024 at 11:47 AM CST, Dumak_from_arfcom said:→

There is talk that the 7th is going to order that McGlynn's decision is deficient.

It is a way to stall. Then SCOTUS takes up the Maryland case and our cases likely go on hold.

CA7 already ruled it deficient on November 15. It did the same thing in Schoenthal. It doesn't really slow anything down. It's just paperwork, as I've posted before in this thread.

On December 4, 2024 at 02:32 PM CST, SiliconSorcerer said:→

If someone was waiting on this based on an arrest aren't they guaranteed a fast trial?

Virtually everyone waives their right to a speedy trial in favor of having time to prepare a proper defense. A trial court wouldn't wait for the appeal ruling, anyway. Criminal procedures take precedence over civil ones. The thing it would delay is the appeal of the conviction, assuming the trial ends in one. No one is guaranteed a speedy appeal.

On December 4, 2024 at 04:41 PM CST, steveTA84 said:→

...
"Starting today, we are treating the possession of these weapons with the seriousness they demand."

That's no big deal. Foxx was never one of the ASAs who said they wouldn't prosecute the law. If you're the kind of person who drinks root beer, your constitutional right is (would have been) a felony to her.

[TomKoz]

On 12/4/2024 at 10:32 PM, Euler said:

 

NOW that we are getting a supposedly 2A friendly US Attorney General and supposedly 2A friendly US DoJ …. Is it possible that they investigate and seek an indictment against Pritzker & others for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law ??

 

Chances?  Chance of successful prosecution?

[ragsbo]

On 12/4/2024 at 11:33 PM, TomKoz said:

NOW that we are getting a supposedly 2A friendly US Attorney General and supposedly 2A friendly US DoJ …. Is it possible that they investigate and seek an indictment against Pritzker & others for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law ??

 

Chances?  Chance of successful prosecution?

Yes there is a chance that could happen. BUT not likely. I say in single digits of possibility 

[richp]

I would assign near zero probability to that.

[Tip]

Seriously doubt it will happen but I suppose it might hinge on how bad the rotund one irritates the incoming administration, after all the present administration has shown how the DOJ can be used to harass political opposition. 

[Illinois Sucks]

Maybe with all the preemptive pardons Biden is going to hand out, there will be plenty of resources to go after lower hanging fruit. 

[Upholder]

Surprising absolutely nobody who has been paying any attention at all, the Seventh Circuit has stayed the injunction:

 

 

https://x.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1864802540816060418

 

[Upholder]

It is not yet reflected on the Seventh Circuit docket as reported on Court Listener RECAP docket

[IH8IL]

Of course it was going to happen.

[Upholder]

FPC has the order: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6708/attachments/original/1733438323/2024.12.05_022_ORDER_Granting_Stay_Pending_Appeal.pdf?1733438323

 

 

2024.12.05_022_ORDER_Granting_Stay_Pending_Appeal.pdf