Jump to content

How long?


powderhead

Recommended Posts

On 2/4/2023 at 3:48 PM, 357 said:

Do you have more details how he inserted himself? He said he intervened on behalf of clients.

 

Google "caulkins devore court" for many many more stories, but here are the broad strokes:

Quote

How Caulkins set up his lawsuit led to a spat with DeVore this week.

 

The latter filed a motion to intervene in Caulkins' case, saying that six plaintiffs were misled as they were only included as members of the association, not as individuals.

 

The plaintiffs were also encouraged to donate $200 to Caulkins' campaign account to help cover legal expenses. Only one of the six actually donated and Caulkins said that contributions were voluntary.

 

The Illinois Freedom Caucus, a far-right bloc of state legislators, put out a statement earlier this week reaffirming that they support all legal challenges to the ban.

 

Caulkins, asked about the brouhaha with DeVore, struck a conciliatory tone Friday.

 

"The work that he's done has been very successful," Caulkins said. "If it weren't for that, we wouldn't be here today. We're following that same trail, but with different arguments. And we we believe that every FOID card holder should have the same privileges, not just the folks that he is named as plaintiffs. That's our difference."

 

Forbes told both attorneys that they made "very good arguments" that he would take under advisement. He hopes "to issue a quick decision," signaling sometime next week.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the continued updates. I have been overseas for past 10 days and have tried to keep uptodate. I missed Devore #2 and didn’t know there was a #3.  Too late for this also.  If I’m following correctly, IL senator Caulkins has filed a suite representing ALL IL FOID holders?  So if he is successful all FOID holders will be under a TRO and free to ignore the IL AWB?   Am I interpreting this correctly?  This is great news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to say a few things.

 

First, not everyone who knows about the law wants to make themselves a target by becoming a plaintiff. I think that's something Caulkin mentioned, and why he wanted to (or did?) keep the names of his plaintiffs secret. That's a very smart idea.

 

Second, I highly doubt this case (Harrel specifically) will take years to litigate. I suspect we'll get a preliminary injunction in less than three months, and a ruling around the middle of summer. From there the state will appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which raises the question of whether or not the preliminary injunction will be upheld during appeal. That's hard to say, but it should be noted that the Chief Justice of the Circuit is a Trump appointee, and ten of the fifteen justices are GOP appointees. Certainly good for our cause.

 

Third, I disagree with folks who say this case will go to SCOTUS. I simply don't think it goes that far. When it gets appealed to the Seventh Circuit, I suspect they'll uphold the injunction and permanently enjoin the law once they reach the merits. The state won't want to appeal to SCOTUS and risk causing more damage to the gun control movement, so things will end there, just as with Moore v. Madigan.

 

Finally (as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread) the state cases, while nice to have, are small fry. The real meat and potatoes are the federal cases, or Harrel specifically. The State Supreme Court can certainly find endless excuses to uphold the ban and/or retroactively bless the legislature's shell bill shenanigans, so that's not the way forward. The federal cases were and always will be the better vehicle for overturning the AWB. I share the same sentiment about the state FOID case in Sangamon: A nice effort, but we really need a federal FOID case not a state case, and for the same reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number 3TRO

 

 

The Center Square) – A third temporary restraining order has been issued in another case challenging Illinois’ gun and magazine ban.

In Macon County, Judge Rodney Forbes followed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in issuing the order restraining Illinois from enforcing the law. But the order does not apply to the whole state, it only applies to the named plaintiffs and the association “Law-Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County," which has hundreds named in the order. 

"The Court further finds 'special legislation and equal protection challenges are judged by the same standard," Forbes wrote. "Accordingly, the Court is required by precedent to enter a temporary restraining order on Count IV (equal protection) and Count V (special legislation) of Plaintiffs' complaint." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 4:26 PM, lilguy said:

Number 3TRO

 

 

The Center Square) – A third temporary restraining order has been issued in another case challenging Illinois’ gun and magazine ban.

In Macon County, Judge Rodney Forbes followed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in issuing the order restraining Illinois from enforcing the law. But the order does not apply to the whole state, it only applies to the named plaintiffs and the association “Law-Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County," which has hundreds named in the order. 

"The Court further finds 'special legislation and equal protection challenges are judged by the same standard," Forbes wrote. "Accordingly, the Court is required by precedent to enter a temporary restraining order on Count IV (equal protection) and Count V (special legislation) of Plaintiffs' complaint." 

Is this the Caukins case?  If so, did the judge refuse to extend it Statewide as he and his lawyers had asked? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reflecting on this, while I expect the judge to issue a preliminary injunction quickly, you'll probably get the final ruling closer towards the end of summer or the beginning of fall, I'm thinking. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

Could happen sooner, who knows, but these things tend to take some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2023 at 9:12 AM, MrTriple said:

In reflecting on this, while I expect the judge to issue a preliminary injunction quickly, you'll probably get the final ruling closer towards the end of summer or the beginning of fall, I'm thinking. Just wanted to clarify that.

 

Could happen sooner, who knows, but these things tend to take some time.

Really depends on if the courts grant 1,000 delays like they have been doing in CA & NY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2023 at 6:58 PM, Upholder said:

 

Yes, this is referring to the Calukins case and the judge issued a TRO for the named plaintiffs (including listed members of the organization) only.

Yes… but Calukins requested it be made statewide for all FOID holders. My question is does anyone know why the judge elected to not do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2023 at 4:36 PM, ragsbo said:

The WHO does have that power????

 

A higher court, or perhaps the same court but not at this point in the case. 

 

It may also be that a TRO is not the appropriate relief for non-plaintiffs and an injunction is needed instead? Or maybe those are legalese for the same thing? I don't typically follow state-level cases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2023 at 9:48 AM, yurimodin said:

Really depends on if the courts grant 1,000 delays like they have been doing in CA & NY

But have they though? The AWB and magazine cases (along with two others, I don't know what they're about) have been moving rather quickly through Judge Benitez's court. As for the New York Bruen response law, we got a preliminary injunction on that within two months, and the Second Circuit's gonna hold a hearing on it sometime in March, which is shockingly fast for the federal appellate courts. And then there's the New Jersey case that got injuncted within, what, four weeks of passage? Whatever the timeframe was, it was unbelievably fast.

 

While I'd prefer that the judge had denied the state's request for more time in the first place, March 1st is quickly approaching, and I believe the AG's history of continual delays will be a point of discussion in the plaintiff's reply to the state's motion. Maybe someone who's more familiar with the specifics can explain why they got the delay, I wouldn't be able to speculate further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear these “ process” filing are nothing but static. The state can go 

back and do it right and we still got nothing. If all this gun legislation is unconstitutional, then order it so,

or just maybe they don’t want to open the floodgates to more weapons. Hoping to screw around for several years and see if new judges will toss Bruen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2023 at 3:28 AM, lilguy said:

I fear these “ process” filing are nothing but static. The state can go 

back and do it right and we still got nothing. If all this gun legislation is unconstitutional, then order it so,

or just maybe they don’t want to open the floodgates to more weapons. Hoping to screw around for several years and see if new judges will toss Bruen.

 

So far the TROs have been based on the equal protection guarantee in the Illinois Constitution, so the courts have "ordered it so".  The questions about process are still looming in the background, though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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