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

[Euler]

I believe the idea of "not later than 14 days before" is that any such waiver should not delay oral arguments.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 6/30/2025 at 10:26 PM, EdDinIL said:

If the state did this:

 

 

Would that delay the oral arguments, assuming it was opposed and not joint?

 

I don't see the state doing that - they lost bigly.  They have to muddy up McGlynn's decision, and bring it all into question by introducing new avenues of interest balancing. During oral arguments their tactic (including Easterbrook) will be to paint more shade on Bruen as a lousy decision. I bet we get something like Friedman is better law, because the "text and history" test in Bruen is to difficult to understand.       

 

I also do not think it would be a good idea for our side to seek a pass on oral arguments.  The SCOTUS wants this case to have a big fat extensive record. Waiving oral arguments and skipping a chance to add to the record, could cost us cert. 

 

So our lawyers and experts will need to be ready for anything. 

 

[Billy Bob]

The State asked for another extension to August 14, and it was granted. The Court's order states that no more extensions will be granted.

 

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-17-State-Defendants-Appellants-Mtn-for-Extension-to-File-Brief.pdf

 

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-18-Order-Granting-State-Defendants-Appellants-Mtn-for-Extension-to-File-Brief.pdf

 

Edited July 19, 2025 at 10:05 PM by Billy Bob
Added something

[Euler]

Although the court granted an extension to August 14 to file the reply, the court did not reschedule the arguments that are still scheduled for September 22. If pushing back arguments was the state's ultimate goal, it failed.

[EdDinIL]

I like this at the bottom of the order... Highlighting is mine.  

Does the state have time to arrange for an extraordinary circumstance?

 

Quote

Important Scheduling Notice! Hearing notices are mailed shortly before the date of oral argument. Please note that counsel’s unavailability for oral argument must be submitted by letter, filed electronically with the Clerk’s Office, no later than seven days after the filing of the appellee’s brief. See Cir. R. 34(b)(3), (4). The court’s calendar is located at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/argcalendar.pdf. Once scheduled, oral argument is rescheduled only in extraordinary circumstances. See Cir. R. 34(b)(4), (e).

 

[Euler]

News: In unrelated events, all members of the Illinois Attorney General's office died in a freak BBQ accident over the weekend. At a press conference on Monday, Governor Pritzker said, "Sometimes extraordinary things just happen."

[Maxon Shooters]

The state filed their Reply Brief today.

IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that the “sooper lethal” and “used by the military” and “used in self defense” are not part of Heller, which, if I recall correctly, is the standard here. I’ll have a fuller write up tomorrow, but this brief is about what I expected.

Dan e.

2025-08-14 Appellants-State Defendants' Reply Brief(2332734.1).pdf

[Kingcreek]

That was hard to read. What a load of garbage and about what I expected.

”extreme lethality” and “militaristic” and always calling them “"assault weapons"”.

 

they sure a lot of time to produce this. It could have been done with a couple hours of cut and paste.

[2A4Cook]

On 8/15/2025 at 2:00 PM, Kingcreek said:

That was hard to read. What a load of garbage and about what I expected.

”extreme lethality” and “militaristic” and always calling them “""assault weapons""”.

 

they sure a lot of time to produce this. It could have been done with a couple hours of cut and paste.

Did you really expect otherwise from these jackhats?

[mikew]

On 8/14/2025 at 8:20 PM, Maxon Shooters said:

The state filed their Reply Brief

 

Thanks Dan!

 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Page 13 of the brief

 

Looks like the state is using the paltry registration numbers to claim that ARs are uncommon. 

 

We had some folks who predicted that was going to happen. 

[yurimodin]

On 8/15/2025 at 8:55 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Page 13 of the brief

 

Looks like the state is using the paltry registration numbers to claim that ARs are uncommon. 

 

We had some folks who predicted that was going to happen. 

😆

[springfield shooter]

On 8/15/2025 at 8:55 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Page 13 of the brief

 

Looks like the state is using the paltry registration numbers to claim that ARs are uncommon. 

 

We had some folks who predicted that was going to happen. 

 

Too bad for them that the Second Amendment covers the entire United States. Even if this lame position were rooted in fact in this particular state (here's guessing it's not), the sales numbers for the entire country prove the fallacy of it.

[yurimodin]

On 8/16/2025 at 8:31 AM, springfield shooter said:

 

Too bad for them that the Second Amendment covers the entire United States. Even if this lame position were rooted in fact in this particular state (here's guessing it's not), the sales numbers for the entire country prove the fallacy of it.

From what I have read between the lines via Mark Smith and others is that 'common use' does not seem to be limited to just make and model used by American Civilians. It seems that there was some other precedent that when you tangled it all together basically implied that 'common use' was just extra emphasis added to being able to be wielded by human hands. The common use extended as examples of domestic and even foreign military's use of most small arms because it justifies the whole well armed militia half of the 2A.

[Molly B.]

A few posts removed from view, no need for name-calling, gentlemen.

[stockboyy]

They have Showed their Hand.

Let us Lose and Lose Quick,

and Move On.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 8/17/2025 at 1:47 PM, stockboyy said:

They have Showed their Hand.

Let us Lose and Lose Quick,

and Move On.

 

I disagree with losing quickly as a goal, if that is what you meant. 

 

 I'd like to get 2 appeals court judges on record supporting Bruen in a positive ruling for our side.  Not only for our cases, but for future cases.  

[yurimodin]

On 8/17/2025 at 11:00 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I disagree with losing quickly as a goal, if that is what you meant. 

 

 I'd like to get 2 appeals court judges on record supporting Bruen in a positive ruling for our side.  Not only for our cases, but for future cases.  

Well I would like to get this overturned before the commies change up SCOTUS

[EdDinIL]

Mark Smith (4 Boxes Diner) commented on a tweet about a related case (Second Circuit, AWB in Connecticut).  He's pinning his hopes on Barnett now.  I'm not sure what his definition of "soon" is, though.

 

 

 

[mab22]

The bypass of unusual and dangerous, now it is unusually dangerous. 
So golly gee back to scotus to play language romper room with the mix of words. 
Can we have that divorce now, where libs go somewhere else and the normal people somewhere else and we live in peace? 
 

[Upholder]

 

[steveTA84]

On 9/3/2025 at 2:42 PM, Upholder said:

 

HUGE!!!!

 

 

Edited September 3, 2025 at 09:59 PM by steveTA84

[Matt B]

I don’t know how much hope I hold for swaying Easterbrook or St Eve, but this certainly helps raise the profile of the case for future en banc or scotus consideration. 

[davel501]

On 9/3/2025 at 2:42 PM, Upholder said:

 

 

Are we sure this is a good thing? This feels like a trojan horse. 

[Euler]

On September 3, 2025 at 07:14 PM CDT, davel501 said:→

Are we sure this is a good thing? This feels like a trojan horse.

It's more like no-cost mid-term PR. NSSF, FPC, and SAF are still the ones doing the heavy lifting.

[mauserme]

On 9/3/2025 at 7:14 PM, davel501 said:

 

Are we sure this is a good thing? This feels like a trojan horse. 

 

The amicus DOJ filed was firmly in support of the 2A.  It would be odd for them to argue against themselves.

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 9/3/2025 at 7:14 PM, davel501 said:

 

Are we sure this is a good thing? This feels like a trojan horse. 

Yes, it’s a very good thing. Harmeet arguing herself.  She is RABIDLY pro-2A. This brings significant exposure (and pressure) to the case and the courts 

[ealcala31]

On 9/3/2025 at 7:14 PM, davel501 said:

 

Are we sure this is a good thing? This feels like a trojan horse. 

The Civil Rights Division gains nothing by supporting this. They would be better off ignoring it from this point on. No other Republican led CRD have gone this far.  I think this is awesome. Harmeet Dhillon is going out of her way to participate in oral arguments. She gets my respect.

 

On 9/3/2025 at 5:38 PM, Matt B said:

I don’t know how much hope I hold for swaying Easterbrook or St Eve

I agree, whether Dhillon participates in oral arguments or not, I think Easterbrook & St. Eve's decision has already been made.

 

On 9/3/2025 at 7:20 PM, Euler said:

It's more like no-cost mid-term PR

The Civil Rights Division could have stayed out of it from the beginning. They would not have lost any political juice one way or the other. For them to actively participate should be commended by the 2A, instead of it being thought as a PR stunt.

[Euler]

On September 3, 2025 at 09:31 PM CDT, ealcala31 said:→

... They would not have lost any political juice one way or the other. ...

Indeed, DOJ doesn't lose by not participating. I didn't say it did. But it gains more by participating than the case gains, if the case gains anything at all.

[ealcala31]

On 9/3/2025 at 9:45 PM, Euler said:

Indeed, DOJ doesn't lose by not participating. I didn't say it did. But it gains more by participating than the case gains, if the case gains anything at all.

The CRD gives oral arguments and the 7th Circuit rules in IL favor (that should be a given to assume that). The legacy media will pound the Trump CRD/DOJ for supporting an AWB case and for getting spanked at the 7th Circuit. They stand to lose more by participating in the case. I hardly see that as a PR stunt.