Anderson v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00728) (S.D. Illinois) - IL Suppressor Ban

[Upholder]

Anderson v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00728) District Court, S.D. Illinois - Illinois State Suppressor Ban

 

docket

 

Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.95099/gov.uscourts.ilsd.95099.1.0.pdf

[dukemason]

This is good to see.   

[Molly B.]

Opinions on how this is different from Morse v Raoul?

[Euler]

On 2/28/2023 at 1:05 AM, Molly B. said:

Opinions on how this is different from Morse v Raoul?

 

1. Different plaintiffs in different counties, although both cases are in the Southern Illinois District Court.
2. Different lawyers for the plaintiffs (Beck & Stamboulieh for Morse, Sigale for Anderson). Beck is Young's attorney in Young v Hawaii.
3. IMO (given a quick read-through) the Anderson complaint appears to be better organized and argued than the (second amended -- 9 Feb 2023) Morse complaint.

 

The Morse complaint mostly just asserts that the IL suppressor prohibition violates the Second Amendment. The Anderson complaint incorporates the Fourteenth Amendment and Bruen into its arguments.

 

They both seek to enjoin 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6). For reference:

 

720 ILCS 5 said:

Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:

...

(6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm;

...

Edited February 28, 2023 at 08:06 AM by Euler

[Molly B.]

Thank you.

[cybermgk]

On 2/28/2023 at 1:54 AM, Euler said:

 

1. Different plaintiffs in different counties, although both cases are in the Southern Illinois District Court.
2. Different lawyers for the plaintiffs (Beck & Stamboulieh for Morse, Sigale for Anderson). Beck is Young's attorney in Young v Hawaii.
3. IMO (given a quick read-through) the Anderson complaint appears to be better organized and argued than the (second amended -- 9 Feb 2023) Morse complaint.

 

The Morse complaint mostly just asserts that the IL suppressor prohibition violates the Second Amendment. The Anderson complaint incorporates the Fourteenth Amendment and Bruen into its arguments.

 

They both seek to enjoin 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6). For reference:

 

Actually, reading the statue.  Suppressors can NOT, in fact, be "used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm; "

 

si·lence

/ˈsīləns/

 

 

noun

noun: silence; plural noun: silences

1. complete absence of sound.

   "sirens pierce the silence of the night"

   h

   Similar:

   quietness

    

    

quiet quietude still stillness hush tranquility noiselessness soundlessness peace peacefulness peace and quiet

 

h Opposite: sound noise

 

• the fact or state of abstaining from speech.

  "Karen had withdrawn into sullen silence"

  h

  Similar:

  speechlessness

   

verb

verb: silence; 3rd person present: silences; past tense: silenced; past participle: silenced; gerund or present participle: silencing

1. 1.

   prohibit or prevent from speaking.

   "she was silenced by the officer's stern look"

   h

 

Edited February 28, 2023 at 02:05 PM by cybermgk

[Upholder]

Mark W. Smith of Four Boxes Diner has a short discussion about this case:

 

 

[Euler]

On February 28, the case was assigned to McGlynn.

[Upholder]

26 - Apr 5, 2023 - ORDER STAYING CASE: This case was filed on February 27, 2023. On February 24, 2023, this Court consolidated four cases that addressed the Protect Illinois Communities Act a/k/a Public Act 102-1116 a/k/a 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9, to wit: 23-cv-141-SPM, 23-cv-192-SPM, 23-cv-209-SPM, and 23-cv-215-SPM. At that time, the Court also entered a briefing schedule and set oral argument on the pending Motions for Preliminary Injunction. Of note, there is neither a pending motion for preliminary injunction nor have the parties sought to consolidate this matter with the pending cases. Nevertheless, this Court has "broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). The Court FINDS that the pending motions in lead case 23-cv-209-SPM could have a significant effect on this matter and does not wish to delay proceedings therein. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a stay of these proceedings is proper. This matter is hereby STAYED for 90 days. All pending matters are held in abeyance. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before July 1, 2023<. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 4/5/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 04/05/2023)

[Euler]

Just to clarify:

23-cv-141 is Harrell v Raoul

23-cv-192 is Langley v Kelly

23-cv-209 is Barnett v Raoul

23-cv-215 is FFL-IL v Pritzker

 

Those cases were consolidated as Barnett v Raoul. The judge is saying that Anderson is going to wait until those cases are resolved, because:

1. there has no pending decision on an injunction in Anderson (i.e., Anderson is less pressing than Barnett),
2. Anderson plaintiffs have not sought to consolidate this case with Barnett, and
3. it makes no sense for this case and the other cases to get in each others' way regarding precedent-setting decisions.

In other words, the judge thinks there should be only one Bruen case at a time (at least in Illinois) to keep things orderly, even though Anderson isn't about the AWB.

 

It's an interesting decision in light of the decision in the Northern District not to stay Viramontes while the injunction in Bevis is being appealed.

[Euler]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:15 PM, Euler said:

...

In other words, the judge thinks there should be only one Bruen case at a time (at least in Illinois) to keep things orderly, even though Anderson isn't about the AWB.

 

It's an interesting decision in light of the decision in the Northern District not to stay Viramontes while the injunction in Bevis is being appealed.

 

It's worth mentioning that Anderson and Barnett are being heard by the same judge.

[Flynn]

On 4/5/2023 at 5:15 PM, Euler said:

In other words, the judge thinks there should be only one Bruen case at a time (at least in Illinois) to keep things orderly, even though Anderson isn't about the AWB.

 

It's horribly flawed legal logic especially for a judge as the cases are arguing different things under different arguments.

 

IMO these judges know how they are going to have to rule to not be overturned, so they are intentionally kickind the can down the road hoping for a miracle that allows them an out.

[MrTriple]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:15 AM, Flynn said:

 

It's horribly flawed legal logic especially for a judge as the cases are arguing different things under different arguments.

 

IMO these judges know how they are going to have to rule to not be overturned, so they are intentionally kickind the can down the road hoping for a miracle that allows them an out.

I don't think it's that, I think it's simply a matter of the judge having the four consolidated Barnett cases to deal with first, which are arguably more pressing than the suppressor ban, which has been on the books for a long time.

 

It also makes more sense from a scheduling perspective to deal with the much larger and messier AWB cases first before moving onto another topic entirely.

[davel501]

 

[Molly B.]

Thank you!  VERY interesting!

[JTHunter]

Nice find Dave !

[Plinkermostly]

More background/update:

 

 

[Euler]

On May 4, the judge terminated all pending motions as moot, consistent with the stay.

 

As a reminder, on April 5 the judge ordered this case staid for 90 days to allow the court to focus on Barnett.

April + 90 days = July

[Euler]

On May 11, the plaintiffs requested that the stay on this case be lifted. The court has already issued an injunction in Barnett (even though CA7 staid it), and delaying this case imposes further harm by way of an unconstitutional law. They propose a hearing on or before May 25 to establish a schedule for further proceedings. In particular, they don't want defendants to use the stay to delay discovery, thus further delaying disposition of the case.

[Euler]

On May 12, the judge ordered the defendants to respond by May 25 to the motion to lift the stay.

[djmarkla]

The problem in almost all 2A cases is that the process is the punishment. Unfortunately the folks that dislike individual liberty are firmly in control of the process. 

[Euler]

On 5/11/2023 at 5:55 PM, Euler said:

On May 11, the plaintiffs requested that the stay on this case be lifted. The court has already issued an injunction in Barnett (even though CA7 staid it), and delaying this case imposes further harm by way of an unconstitutional law. They propose a hearing on or before May 25 to establish a schedule for further proceedings. In particular, they don't want defendants to use the stay to delay discovery, thus further delaying disposition of the case.

 

On 5/12/2023 at 7:13 PM, Euler said:

On May 12, the judge ordered the defendants to respond by May 25 to the motion to lift the stay.

 

On May 25, the defendants filed that they agree to lift the stay. Further they ask that the judge set a deadline of June 16 for their response to the complaint.