Jump to content

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


Upholder

Recommended Posts

The district court issued an opinion holding that multiple state laws regulating "assault weapons", large-capacity magazines, and associated matters are unconstitutional. The opinion contains some language in the nature of a permanent injunction, but this language does not appear in either an injunction (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1) (”Every order granting an injunction… must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail- and not by referring to the complaint or other document —the act or acts restrained or required. )) or a Rule 58 judgment (which omits the relief to which the prevailing parties are entitled).

Defendants have appealed, and they request a stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs have responded, and defendants have replied. The parties also have filed memoranda addressing the problems created by the district court’s noncompliance with Rules 58 and 65.

Appellate jurisdiction exists, notwithstanding these errors, because it is plain that the district court is done with the case. Compliance with Rules 58 and 65 remains necessary -essential, if any litigant anticipates enforcing the decision through the contempt power —and we trust that the district court will enter appropriate orders promptly without the need for a formal command by this court.

Defendants’ request for a stay rests largely on the fact that this court already has held that the laws in question survive motions seeking preliminary injunctions. Bevis o. Naperville, 85 F.4th 1175 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2491 (2024). A decision at the preliminary-injunction stage is not dispositive when the plaintiffs later seek permanent relief; our opinion indicated some matters that needed further exploration. But the analysis in Bevis shows that the laws have enough support to remain in place pending the final resolution of plaintiffs’ suit.

Every other court of appeals that has addressed the validity of similar legislation in the wake of New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), has come out the same way as Bevis. See Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 95 F.4th 38 (1st Cir. 2024); Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc); Hanson v. Smith, 120 F .4th 223 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The laws addressed by those decisions differ in some respects from the Illinois statute. Yet the absence of support in other circuits for the district court’s disposition lends strength to a conclusion that the Illinois statutes should remain in force until final appellate resolution.

At least two other essentially identical suits are pending in other district courts within the Seventh Circuit. The three suits were addressed jointly in Bevis, and they must be resolved the same way eventually. (The state laws cannot be valid in some parts of Illinois and invalid elsewhere.) This does not necessarily imply that the three cases will again be consolidated on appeal; we are reluctant to delay disposition of this appeal indefinitely just because similar litigation is pending in other districts. Still, the only way to preserve the status quo statewide is to enter a stay in this suit.

The judgment of the district court accordingly is stayed. The stay will remain in force until this court has issued its mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

... Is it possible that they investigate and seek an indictment against Pritzker & others for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law ?? ...

 

No. Legislatures have the legal authority to pass laws, even bad laws. Governors have the legal authority to sign laws, even bad laws.

 

It's a fallacy to believe that autocracy can save you from the other guy's autocracy.

 

No more kings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2024 at 6:07 PM, Upholder said:

 

Interesting that they think preserving the status quo is allowing this brand new law to remain in effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easterbrook & Co. offer a quite unimpressive summary to justify the stay of McGlynn’s injunction (not shocking). 
 

SCOTUS, visit upon them the strength of your might….very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what the appellate court said, if I understand it correctly, and I had help.

 

They didn't like the wording and FELT that it wasn't CLEAR enough.

 

For example it could have said the following below, but the 3 stooges could simply say that it's not clear enough, and we don't like it so, we will never be pleased with what is written.

The judge should also have put it the injunction in a separate document.

Totally complete and utter 🐄💩!

 

Sample of what it could have stated to make it clearer, yet they would still use the same lame excuse.

Quote

Defendants, including the State of Illinois and its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, are hereby ENJOINED as follows:

a. From enforcing the provisions of 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 5/24-1(a)(14)-(16) prohibiting the possession, sale, transfer, or use of bump stocks, "assault weapons", and their attachments.

b. From enforcing the provisions of 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 5/24-1.9(a)-(h) prohibiting the possession, sale, transfer, or use of "assault weapons" and their attachments.

c. From enforcing the provisions of 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 5/24-1.10(a)-(h) prohibiting the possession, sale, transfer, or use of large-capacity magazines.

d. From enforcing the provisions of 430 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 65/4.1, including firearm registration requirements, penalties, and the endorsement affidavit for non-exempt firearms, magazines, and attachments.

 

This is what the judge wrote.

Quote

The State of Illinois is hereby ENJOINED from the enforcement of:

  • 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. §§ 5/24-1(a)(14)-(16) (prohibiting bump stocks and "assault weapons");
  • 5/24-1.9(a)-(h) (prohibiting "assault weapons" and attachments); and
  • 5/24-1.10(a)-(h) (prohibiting large-capacity magazines).

Against all Illinois citizens, effective immediately.

As the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for "assault weapons", attachments, and large-capacity magazines. Therefore, the State of Illinois is ENJOINED from enforcing the firearm registration requirements and penalties associated with entering false information on the endorsement affidavit for non-exempt weapons, magazines, and attachments previously required to be registered in accordance with 430 ILL. COMP. STAT. 65/4.1.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2024 at 9:07 PM, mab22 said:

So what the appellate court said, if I understand it correctly, and I had help.

 

They didn't like the wording and FELT that it wasn't CLEAR enough.

 

For example it could have said the following below, but the 3 stooges could simply say that it's not clear enough, and we don't like it so, we will never be pleased with what is written.

The judge should also have put it the injunction in a separate document.

Totally complete and utter 🐄💩!

 

Sample of what it could have stated to make it clearer, yet they would still use the same lame excuse.

 

This is what the judge wrote.

 

 

This.  They didn't like his decision and want him to write something they can pick apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2024 at 9:43 PM, kingc said:

 

It's fairly easy to say the snopes decision if the SC accepts it will come down long before the 7th Circuit drags its feet on this case(which we will lose), then have to appeal to the SC.

 

Our best hope is them hearing Snopes and the decision be in our favor by next summer.

 

I'm afraid better than that is likely pie in the sky thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2024 at 6:57 AM, Grub said:

It's fairly easy to say the snopes decision if the SC accepts it will come down long before the 7th Circuit drags its feet on this case(which we will lose), then have to appeal to the SC.

 

Our best hope is them hearing Snopes and the decision be in our favor by next summer.

 

I'm afraid better than that is likely pie in the sky thinking.

Don't worry, the 7th Circuit will find some way to skirt whatever SCOTUS says to do, regardless of how they rule in Snope v Brown.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on 12/9, Judge McGlynn filed a 4 page amended judgement and separate permanent injunction against PICA:

 

Judgement: https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/DFTXU6Y/Caleb_Barnett_et_al_v_Kwame_Raoul_et_al__07cae-24-03060__0025.1.pdf

 

injunction: https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/DDXZKWY/Caleb_Barnett_et_al_v_Kwame_Raoul_et_al__07cae-24-03060__0025.2.pdf

 

 

 

 

Edited by Upholder
Added injunction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm 🤔.  I am not a lawyer, so I question - IF unconstitutional laws need NOT to be followed (I believe US Supreme Court precedent on this) AND since Judge McGlynn  is the last court to make a Final ruling on the matter  - wouldn’t that mean that Nobody is bound by PICA no matter if a “Stay” was issued or not ????? !!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now we have to wait for the date that the the appellate court sets to see if this modified ruling meets the standards set by the 3 stooges?

 

I am guessing that we have to wait for that hearing, then they will read the updated version, and then have to have time to "mull it over", clean out the sock drawers, clean up the garage, make sure all the farm equipment is in working order, wait for the fall break, then think about getting back to the decision?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2024 at 7:42 AM, mab22 said:

So now we have to wait for the date that the the appellate court sets to see if this modified ruling meets the standards set by the 3 stooges?

 

I am guessing that we have to wait for that hearing, then they will read the updated version, and then have to have time to "mull it over", clean out the sock drawers, clean up the garage, make sure all the farm equipment is in working order, wait for the fall break, then think about getting back to the decision?

 

Why would they hurry it that much?????🤬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
If a long time goes by, the plaintiffs can remind the appeals court that it needs to set a schedule. Eventually the plaintiffs could ask the Supreme Court to order the appeals court to set a schedule. Remember that McGlynn only just amended his order in December, so it could be December 2025 before anything happens. There are no time limits.

For example, Yukutake v Connors had arguments in the 9th Circuit in February 2023. The 9th Circuit has not issued any decision yet. The 9th Circuit appears to be waiting until some other case makes it to the Supreme Court from some other circuit and moots Yukutake. Until then, HI's handgun restrictions stand. The 7th Circuit could absolutely do the same thing with PICA, which means PICA will never make it to the Supreme Court, so waiting for it there is misguided.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don’t get it.  The LAST judicial ruling on the PICA law that we have is that the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.    Period.  Stop.

 

Is it not Supreme Court of the US precedent that Unconstitutional laws do NOT need to be followed??  
 

Could this be WHY we have yet to see a case where PICA law was enforced or prosecuted ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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