Kenneally v. Raoul (3:23-cv-50039) (N.D. Ill) - IL AW and Mag ban

[Upholder]

Initially filed in McHenry County as Patrick Kenneally v. Kwame Raoul and JB Pritzker, No. 2023 CH 5, now moved to federal court as 3:23-cv-50039

 

This is filed by the State's Attorney for McHenry County in his official capacity.

 

docket

 

[John Q Public]

Works for me...

[Upholder]

Plaintiff's Memorandum in support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Injunctive Relief:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429780/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429780.6.0.pdf

[Upholder]

Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429780/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429780.9.0.pdf

[Euler]

On March 3, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings.

 

On March 16, defendants withdrew the motion, claiming that the federal court had no jurisdiction on the matter (i.e., asking to have the case remanded back to state court), because because the plaintiffs did not have standing, including 2A standing, to bring the case.

 

On March 17, the judge (recalling that defendants had the case removed to federal court from state court) took defendants to task in a minute filing. The verbatim summary is below.

 

Minute entry said:

The defendants removed this case, then moved for judgment on the pleadings based on lack of standing. ... They have now filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion for judgment on the pleadings based on their conclusion that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over this case, the case they removed to federal court. ... So what is it? Do the defendants believe this Court has jurisdiction (which is the only basis to remove it here) or do the defendants believe this Court lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacks standing? Pick one and be prepared to tell the Court why. And if the answer is the Court lacks jurisdiction, be prepared to tell the Court why the case was removed to this Court. Please keep Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in mind during this process. Perhaps the judicial resources already expended could have been avoided had the defendants complied with this Court's standing order on Removed Cases, specifically the unheeded requirement that in "any action removed to this Court, within 7 business days, defense counsel must also file a certification that they have read this standing order." The parties are directed to review the standing order if they have not already done so, including the warnings about summary remands, awards of costs, and sanctions for the unnecessary use of the Court's time to be paid personally by counsel. A status hearing is set for 4/03/2023 at 11:00 AM. Counsel shall appear in person.

 

On March 20, defendants requested leave to file an oversize brief.

 

Defendants appear to have gone judge-shopping and are experiencing some buyer's remorse. The judge isn't too happy about it either, especially the (subtextual) remorse part.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 at 01:11 AM by Euler

[springfield shooter]

An in-person status hearing (in front of an apparently agitated judge) in the ND April 3. An afternoon set aside for the April 12 hearing in the SD. April could be a very significant month.

[Flynn]

On 3/20/2023 at 8:10 PM, Euler said:

Defendants appear to have gone judge-shopping and are experiencing some buyer's remorse. The judge isn't too happy about it either, especially the (subtextual) remorse part.

 

Yeah, wow, that is obviously one highly annoyed judge.  In my 'unprofessional' opinion not a smart move by the state 😂  I do love that the judge made it crystal clear, that they best not attempt to use more too clever by half antics while attempting to explain their already used too clever by half antics, and that they must do it in person in from of him...

[Upholder]

The government had asked to be able to file an oversized brief of 70 pages.  The judge has allowed for oversized, but only 50 pages:

 

16 - Mar 21, 2023 - MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: The defendants' motion for leave to file an oversized brief 15 is unopposed and granted in limited part. The response brief shall not exceed 50 pages. (yxp, )

 

[Tvandermyde]

they are going to file the same garbage they have been filing in the other cases

[Upholder]

On 3/21/2023 at 1:30 PM, Tvandermyde said:

they are going to file the same garbage they have been filing in the other cases

 

Absolutely, but they'll have to at least edit it for length since they have been filing 70 pages.

[Flynn]

On 3/21/2023 at 3:25 PM, Upholder said:

 

Absolutely, but they'll have to at least edit it for length since they have been filing 70 pages.

 

I expect it's going to be a hoot to see what they edit out, omit or try to re-word to get it down to 50 pages vs a 70 page copy and paste.

[Euler]

Defendants have filed their document, with many attachments.

 

The main document is 55 pages. There are 16 attachments, mostly expert statements (probably recycled). The shortest attachment is 37 pages. The longest attachment is 274 pages. Across all 16 attachments, there are 1707 pages (an average of more than 106 per attachment).

[Flynn]

On 3/24/2023 at 7:50 PM, Euler said:

Defendants have filed their document, with many attachments.

 

The main document is 55 pages. There are 16 attachments, mostly expert statements (probably recycled). The shortest attachment is 37 pages. The longest attachment is 274 pages. Across all 16 attachments, there are 1707 pages (an average of more than 106 per attachment).

 

I have a funny feeling the already annoyed judge is not going to be amused in the least, just a guess 🤣

[Upholder]

As expected, it's the same bat guano as before, with one new twist where they claim lack of standing in state or federal court:

 

[Upholder]

The state says:

Quote

All firearms that can accept a detachable large capacity magazine
can also accept a magazine that holds fewer rounds and work just as well.

 

If that is the case, what benefit is there to banning magazines that hold more?   If the firearm works just as well, there is no benefit to preventing the use of larger magazines.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 3/24/2023 at 9:55 PM, Upholder said:

As expected, it's the same bat guano as before, with one new twist where they claim lack of standing in state or federal court:

 

 

They can't let go of interest balancing.  It is all they have, and they know it.  

[Upholder]

They claim on page 16:

 

 

 

And then on page 20 rebut their own position (albeit with an equally improper interpretation of Heller):

 

[Upholder]

Page 20:

 

 

 

Show me any military using Ruger 10/22 for warfare.   I'll wait.

 

[springfield shooter]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:22 PM, Upholder said:

Page 20:

 

 

 

Show me any military using Ruger 10/22 for warfare.   I'll wait.

 

 

While you wait, you may want to follow my late father's sage advice, and not hold your breath.

[Flynn]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:22 PM, Upholder said:

Page 20:

 

 

 

They are not mutally exclusive uses, just sayin'

 

Putting that aside, it begs the question, why are police, ex-police, prison guards and the like still allowed to have them if they are only for war?

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:22 PM, Upholder said:

Page 20:

 

 

 

Show me any military using Ruger 10/22 for warfare.   I'll wait.

 

Careful the Ruger MKII definitely still sees military use.

[Upholder]

Statement in Response to the Court's Minute Entry

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429780/gov.uscourts.ilnd.429780.21.0.pdf

[Upholder]

 

Quote

In January, Governor Pritzker said sheriffs "don’t get to choose which laws they enforce."

Now, his lawyers say state's attorneys don't have standing to challenge the gun ban because they "have exclusive and unreviewable discretion" to decide which laws to enforce: https://t.co/Y26dVkuHki pic.twitter.com/d9WDCUufzU

 

[Upholder]

[Upholder]

Also.. please don't make us pay fines out of our own pockets...

 

[Flynn]

On 3/30/2023 at 8:24 PM, Upholder said:

 

LOL, so they went full retard and are saying state laws are entirely optional?  How does that not smack the equal protection clause in the face as they are basically saying enforcement and prosecution of a state law is now entirely dependent upon zipcode and the whim of prosecutors?  I say take this filing over to the other cases challenging it on equal protection grounds as they literally are shooting themselves in their own feet with these mental gymnastics!

Edited March 31, 2023 at 01:33 AM by Flynn

[JTHunter]

On 3/30/2023 at 8:32 PM, Flynn said:

 

LOL, so they went full retard and are saying state laws are entirely optional?  How does that not smack the equal protection clause in the face as they are basically saying enforcement and prosecution of a state law is now entirely dependent upon zipcode and the whim of prosecutors?  I say take this filing over to the other cases challenging it on equal protection grounds as they literally are shooting themselves in their own feet with these mental gymnastics!

 

Ooo, I like that thought.  It's always fun to watch lawyers and politicians tripping over their own feet or tongues.

[Euler]

On April 3, the status hearing took place.

 

Plaintiffs are to respond to the defendants' request for remand back to the state by May 1.

Defendants are to reply to the plaintiffs' response by May 16.

Alternatively, if the plaintiffs agree to remand, then the court will remand.

 

Meanwhile, defendants' motion for summary judgment is on hold. Plaintiffs had previously had a deadline of April 14 to respond, which is now canceled.

[steveTA84]

Let’s hope Kenneally tells the state to

stuff it and apologizes on their behalf for wasting his time and they’d (plaintiffs) like to proceed in federal court 

[Euler]

On December 11, the judge suggested (not ordered) that parties should file briefs on how the 7th Circuit's ruling on Bevis would affect their cases. They have until January 11 to file.