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

Sweeper13 Member

Sweeper13

Posted
Posted
On 12/23/2025 at 5:19 PM, EdDinIL said:

Someone with way more time, access, and data collating skills than me could probably come up with a general idea of how long it takes for 7CA to issue a ruling.  My money is on "not until the current SCOTUS term ends".

 

If the state wins, do we have to request an en banc hearing, or can it go straight to SCOTUS?  I assume if we win, the state will request a stay and an en banc hearing as part of the slow-walk playbook.

 

 

I'm not sure if you watched this, he explains different scenarios. Start at 10:40. 

 

 

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 12/24/2025 at 4:19 PM, Sweeper13 said:

I'm not sure if you watched this, he explains different scenarios. Start at 10:40. 

I watched it when it came out, but forgot about it.  Thanks for the refresher.  Answers my question exactly.  State wins, good team goes to SCOTUS.  Good team wins, state goes en banc. 

Nevermind what he said about remand, I was just looking for the eventual way forward. Let's hope remand doesn't happen, though.

Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 12/30/2025 at 12:12 AM, EdDinIL said:

I watched it when it came out, but forgot about it.  Thanks for the refresher.  Answers my question exactly.  State wins, good team goes to SCOTUS.  Good team wins, state goes en banc. 

Nevermind what he said about remand, I was just looking for the eventual way forward. Let's hope remand doesn't happen, though.

 

I've been wondering why Viramontes is sitting at SCOTUS.  I'm wondering if they might hold it, and keep it in their back pocket in case Easterbrook does a remand on Barnett.  

 

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 12/30/2025 at 9:21 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I've been wondering why Viramontes is sitting at SCOTUS.  I'm wondering if they might hold it, and keep it in their back pocket in case Easterbrook does a remand on Barnett.  

 

or they could reach down from their ivory tower and just stop the nonsense......

mikew Member

mikew

Posted
Posted
On 12/30/2025 at 9:21 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

I've been wondering why Viramontes is sitting at SCOTUS.  I'm wondering if they might hold it, and keep it in their back pocket in case Easterbrook does a remand on Barnett.  

 

DC v Heller took 5 years from being filed as Heller v DC in the district court to being handed a favorable ruling from SCOTUS.


McDonald v Chicago took two years, and we got spoiled.

John Q Public Member

John Q Public

Posted
Posted

And yet, here we are with full on bans for Ar, and standard mags, threaded barrel bans, safe storage laws, OP, and DTSOO, orders when you have no right to defend. How are we better and how long do we wait? I haven't seen the SC make any major moves, the ones they have made are so full of holes, the lower courts are driving rock trucks through them. 

davel501 Member

davel501

Posted
Posted
On 1/1/2026 at 5:57 PM, Upholder said:

Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized.

 

We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen.

 

 

Government wants their taxes on time every year. 

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 1/1/2026 at 5:57 PM, Upholder said:

Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized.

 

We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen.

Brown v Board of Education was a 9-0 unanimous decision that was generally accepted by the population and yet it still had to be enforced at gunpoint by the National Guard in some locations. Even if we had a national conversation about guns, 2A rights will never get the same level of acceptance, and good luck getting the IL National Guard to enforce it.

mikew Member

mikew

Posted
Posted
On 1/1/2026 at 10:27 PM, EdDinIL said:

Brown v Board of Education was a 9-0 unanimous decision that was generally accepted by the population and yet it still had to be enforced at gunpoint by the National Guard in some locations. Even if we had a national conversation about guns, 2A rights will never get the same level of acceptance, and good luck getting the IL National Guard to enforce it.

And yet, here we are, the keyboard militia, arguing with each other over non-2A topics.

 

Have you all written/called/visited anyone that represents you?
Gone to a protest?  
Needed space to destroy?

Or will we go silently?

 

 

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 1/2/2026 at 10:02 AM, mikew said:

Or will we go silently?

It's the last act of "not going silently" that scares the crap out of everyone, probably even more so than going silently.  That's why we're pinning our hopes on the third box of liberty, not the fourth one.

John Q Public Member

John Q Public

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/1/2026 at 5:57 PM, Upholder said:

Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized.

 

We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen.

 

And we have more laws in violation than we did before it was passed.

Edited by John Q Public
  • 1 month later...
EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 9/25/2025 at 6:25 PM, Upholder said:

I fully expect it to be at least July, 2026 before the 7th Circuit provides a ruling. 

To borrow from Bon Jovi, whooaaaa-ohhh we're halfway there!

  • 2 weeks later...
mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted

Four Boxes diner at about 9 minutes talks about DC and that court creating a differences among the courts. 
Does this help this case since the DC case was about mag capacity? 
 

 

John Q Public Member

John Q Public

Posted
Posted (edited)

None of it matters... There is no SC ready to slap anything down. Even if they did, lower courts/politicians would pass another BS Uncon law and it begins again. Unless/Until we say enough, it will, forever, be useless.  IMO Reps have had both houses and we can't pass sheet, because we are not unified. The opposition votes as one, but we, do not, therefore even when we have both houses we are stuck in their lack of solidarity. That's why we will never win, unless something changes. 

 

 

 

Edited by John Q Public
  • 3 weeks later...
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
US v Prince has been waiting for a decision from CA7 for 14 months and counting.

Yukutake v Lopez took 25 months after oral argument for CA9 to issue a decision (against the state), which the state filed for en banc rehearing.
Dumak_from_arfcom Member

Dumak_from_arfcom

Posted
Posted
On 3/30/2026 at 7:51 PM, Euler said:

US v Prince has been waiting for a decision from CA7 for 14 months and counting.

Yukutake v Lopez took 25 months after oral argument for CA9 to issue a decision (against the state), which the state filed for en banc rehearing.

 

IIRC Justice Thomas said he wanted this case expedited.  Our side should poke the bear.  

cbunt32 Member

cbunt32

Posted
Posted
On 3/30/2026 at 7:51 PM, Euler said:

US v Prince has been waiting for a decision from CA7 for 14 months and counting.

Yukutake v Lopez took 25 months after oral argument for CA9 to issue a decision (against the state), which the state filed for en banc rehearing.

Got a decision on US v Prince finally. Took them that long to issue a decision they all agree on. Can't imagine how long it will take if there is a dissent.

  • 3 weeks later...
EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 4/20/2026 at 11:16 PM, davel501 said:

Somebody needs to wake up Thomas. 

 

To do what, say pretty please with sugar on top?  All sarcasm aside, can he compel 7CA to more forward?

davel501 Member

davel501

Posted
Posted
On 4/21/2026 at 1:39 PM, EdDinIL said:

 

To do what, say pretty please with sugar on top?  All sarcasm aside, can he compel 7CA to more forward?

 

When he denied the interlocutory appeal he instructed the 7th to resolve this quickly and the lawyers to return if they don't. 

Tip Member

Tip

Posted
Posted
On 4/21/2026 at 1:49 PM, davel501 said:

 

When he denied the interlocutory appeal he instructed the 7th to resolve this quickly and the lawyers to return if they don't. 

But did he define “quickly”???

SiliconSorcerer Member

SiliconSorcerer

Posted
Posted
On 4/21/2026 at 1:49 PM, davel501 said:

 

When he denied the interlocutory appeal he instructed the 7th to resolve this quickly and the lawyers to return if they don't. 

Denied was when?

(Sorry I know it's buried somewhere in the string of messages) 

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 4/21/2026 at 1:49 PM, davel501 said:

 

When he denied the interlocutory appeal he instructed the 7th to resolve this quickly and the lawyers to return if they don't. 

What happens if (when?) the 7th still doesn't do anything like a petulant child ignoring a parent?  

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...