Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[AKS-74U]

When/where will we hear an official answer about those listed in Dan Caulkins case?

 

I am asking as someone on that list. Can I buy a gun not?

[cbunt32]

On 2/9/2023 at 12:37 AM, jcable2 said:

I see Tom said in 3 different posts that they didn't even ask for it to apply State wide but on page 10 of the combined motion it does. Either he didn't read the combined motion or is outright lying. 

 

Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Combined-Motion.pdf 3.06 MB · 4 downloads

The motion asks for it statewide but even Caulkins attorney has said the TRO was a negotiated unopposed order. 

[jcable2]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:24 PM, AKS-74U said:

When/where will we hear an official answer about those listed in Dan Caulkins case?

 

I am asking as someone on that list. Can I buy a gun not?

Did you download the file? It has exhibit A. If your name is on that you can buy gun/mags. 

[AKS-74U]

 

On 2/9/2023 at 6:40 PM, jcable2 said:

Did you download the file? It has exhibit A. If your name is on that you can buy gun/mags. 

 

 

 

That is my interpretation as well, but I've had two ffls tell me that they have been advised that is not the case, and they cannot complete a transfer.

[cbunt32]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:43 PM, AKS-74U said:

 

On 2/9/2023 at 6:40 PM, jcable2 said:

Did you download the file? It has exhibit A. If your name is on that you can buy gun/mags. 

 

 

 

That is my interpretation as well, but I've had two ffls tell me that they have been advised that is not the case, and they cannot complete a transfer.

Were those FFL's also included in one of the 3 TRO's? If so then they might just be overly cautious? But if that were the case why be part of the litigation...?

[Tip]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:43 PM, AKS-74U said:

 

On 2/9/2023 at 6:40 PM, jcable2 said:

Did you download the file? It has exhibit A. If your name is on that you can buy gun/mags. 

 

 

 

That is my interpretation as well, but I've had two ffls tell me that they have been advised that is not the case, and they cannot complete a transfer.

Just because you are under the TRO isn’t enough.

If the FFL is NOT on the list he cannot sell because the law says he cannot.

You’ll probably need to deal with an FFL that’s on the list, or included in one of the other suits.

 

[2smartby1/2]

There probably needs to be a simplified list of FFL's under the three TRO's so those on the list know who to go to. 

[jcable2]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:43 PM, AKS-74U said:

 

On 2/9/2023 at 6:40 PM, jcable2 said:

Did you download the file? It has exhibit A. If your name is on that you can buy gun/mags. 

 

 

 

That is my interpretation as well, but I've had two ffls tell me that they have been advised that is not the case, and they cannot complete a transfer.

The judge said it applies and that is the important part. I talked to a few FFL on Tom's cases. Some told me that Tom asked them not to sell to anyone on Dan's case. Some are willing others said because Tom asked them not to they will not. 

[Rev Jim]

I guess anyone with legal questions about their own situation can ask their lawyer. If you haven't hired one you can always take the advice of anonymous people on the internet.

[gunuser17]

Mr. Devore may be concerned that the TRO in his cases only applies to transactions between the Plaintiffs within a particular case - in other words plaintiff FFLs in one single case can only sell under the TRO to buyers that are plaintiffs in that same case.  I hope that is what he believes.  If not and he is just stirring up dissent and trouble because of jealousy between plaintiffs' lawyers, then his clients should fire him.

[Book'm]

On 2/9/2023 at 8:46 PM, gunuser17 said:

Mr. Devore may be concerned that the TRO in his cases only applies to transactions between the Plaintiffs within a particular case - in other words plaintiff FFLs in one single case can only sell under the TRO to buyers that are plaintiffs in that same case.  I hope that is what he believes.  If not and he is just stirring up dissent and trouble because of jealousy between plaintiffs' lawyers, then his clients should fire him.

 

If memory serves, in one of Devore's videos he explained that the group/assoc. in Caulkins case was not a "legal entity" or some such language. He voiced concern that an FFL selling to a member of this group could open themselves to enforcement action as the group members are technically not "named plantiffs".  And yes, as was said, Devore has since created a legal entity with by-laws and such to be used as a named plaintiff in some potential future case(s).

 

I'm not weighing in on the beef between Caulkins and Devore, nor taking sides. Just laying out what was said and likely that the FFLs are operating under the legal advice of their lawyer(Devore).

 

On the original topic:

Congratulations to Mr Caulkins and the plantiffs on getting a TRO. Another one in the W column.

[jcable2]

On 2/9/2023 at 11:49 PM, Book'm said:

 

If memory serves, in one of Devore's videos he explained that the group/assoc. in Caulkins case was not a "legal entity" or some such language. He voiced concern that an FFL selling to a member of this group could open themselves to enforcement action as the group members are technically not "named plantiffs".  And yes, as was said, Devore has since created a legal entity with by-laws and such to be used as a named plaintiff in some potential future case(s).

 

I'm not weighing in on the beef between Caulkins and Devore, nor taking sides. Just laying out what was said and likely that the FFLs are operating under the legal advice of their lawyer(Devore).

 

On the original topic:

Congratulations to Mr Caulkins and the plantiffs on getting a TRO. Another one in the W column.

That is bull saying that it would open the FFL up to enforcement action and Tom knows that. Directly from the judges order.

 

"A temporary restraining order is entered enjoining Defendants and

their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys from enforcing 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9 and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10 against Plantiffs Dan Caulkins, Perry Lewin, Decatur Jewlery and Antiques Inc., and the members of

the Law Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County as identified in Exhibit A attached to the written order."

 

Here is relevant law for unincorporated association.

https://casetext.com/statute/illinois-compiled-statutes/rights-and-remedies/chapter-735-civil-procedure/act-5-code-of-civil-procedure/article-ii-civil-practice/part-2-process/section-735-ilcs-52-2091-actions-by-and-against-voluntary-associations#:~:text=A voluntary unincorporated association may,excluding a partnership or corporation.

 

Tom may have created a corporated association but unincorporated associations are legal in Illinois and can sue. As a lawyer I am sure Tom would be aware of this. 

Nonprofit Unincorporated Associations Illinois has no statutes governing unincorporated associations, however they are judicially recognized. See Perkaus v. Chicago Catholic High School Athletic League, 140 Ill.App.3d 127 (1986). 

 

[Upholder]

DeVore has reportedly filed with the IL Supreme Court to consolidate this case with his three cases:

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/motion-filed-to-consolidate-state-level-challenges-to-illinois-gun-ban/article_68751a2a-aca1-11ed-b047-b30ea162f4cd.html

[Upholder]

Attorneys differ on whether challenges to Illinois’ gun ban should be consolidated

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_934c5b4c-b2f9-11ed-8d22-6b58c3e58023.html

[mab22]

On 2/22/2023 at 5:06 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

I agree with DeVore on this.   Caulkins already failed  to get his state-wide TRO from a court that didn't have the authority to order one.  They should not push a bad case.  He did that once in hope for a hail mary TRO.  It didn't work, now it is time to settle down, rather than rush in stupidly to the state supremes.  

Maybe JB has a job for him, why else would he do something so stupid?
He has no facts, no proof of anything, no argument, and the AG is encouraging them to not to consolidate the cases.

He is also waving procedures and other things to get it to the Supreme Court, he’s basically going full reta**, and everyone knows you never go full reta**!

Then the other cases get ____ over!
 

[Upholder]

The attorney for the Caulkins case is interviewed during this segment, with DeVore interviewed afterward:

 

 

[Molly B.]

IL Supreme Court combined Devore's three cases but declined to merge Rep Caulkin's case with them.  It will remain separate.

[steveTA84]

On 2/23/2023 at 6:27 PM, Molly B. said:

IL Supreme Court combined Devore's three cases but declined to merge Rep Caulkin's case with them.  It will remain separate.

I’m thinking this might be a good thing, but with all of the garbage going on who Knows anymore 

 

 

 

edit: DeVore’s take 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 at 01:55 AM by steveTA84

[MrTriple]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:48 PM, steveTA84 said:

Thank god!

How does all of this fit together if you have the Bevis case in the Northern District, Harrel down south, the consolidated Devore cases, and Caulkin's case? What happens if, say, you get a TRO in Harrel on top of the appeal in Bevis on top of a potential State Supreme Court TRO or even a ruling? Just seems like a big mess.

Edited February 24, 2023 at 01:57 AM by MrTriple

[steveTA84]

^^^

i edited my comment. In short, Caulkins, Pritzker and the AG got what they wanted. If they can beat Caulkins (and Caulkins wants to go at it alone apparently), then they can screw over the DeVore cases

[MrTriple]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:02 PM, steveTA84 said:

^^^

i edited my comment. In short, Caulkins, Pritzker and the AG got what they wanted. If they can beat Caulkins (and Caulkins wants to go at it alone apparently), then they can screw over the DeVore cases

But what happens if, for example, we get a TRO in Harrel after tomorrow's hearing, such as later in the day (not likely?) or early next week (more likely?)

 

Because if my assumptions are correct, wouldn't the federal cases take precedence over any state case?

[cbunt32]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:57 PM, MrTriple said:

How does all of this fit together if you have the Bevis case in the Northern District, Harrel down south, the consolidated Devore cases, and Caulkin's case? What happens if, say, you get a TRO in Harrel on top of the appeal in Bevis on top of a potential State Supreme Court TRO or even a ruling? Just seems like a big mess.

Just my opinion, the rush to be first are screwing the cases where they are trying to do it right and build a record. Caulking screwing over Devore. Bevis screwing the other cases. (Todd’s comment about the state going for a stay on the cases in the south due to Bevis appeal has me spooked.) I get we all want this struck down as quickly as possible but it doesn’t help if we lose.

[cbunt32]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:17 PM, MrTriple said:

But what happens if, for example, we get a TRO in Harrel after tomorrow's hearing, such as later in the day (not likely?) or early next week (more likely?)

 

Because if my assumptions are correct, wouldn't the federal cases take precedence over any state case?

The hearing tomorrow isn’t on the TRO

[MrTriple]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:23 PM, cbunt32 said:

The hearing tomorrow isn’t on the TRO

Are we sure? The text of the order seems to suggest that a TRO is one point of discussion (emphasis mine):

 

"35 - Feb 21, 2023 - Notice and Order: The Court is in receipt of 33 Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing filed on February 17, 2023 for consideration by this Court. This matter is set for status conference/motion hearing via Zoom on Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. CST to discuss the aforementioned motion as well as consolidation of the four cases for discovery and pretrial remedies including TROs and/or other injunctive relief. Zoom invitations will be sent under separate cover. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/21/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/21/2023)"

 

Maybe I'm reading the judge wrong, but it seems significant that he desires to discuss a TRO.

Edited February 24, 2023 at 02:30 AM by MrTriple

[cbunt32]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:30 PM, MrTriple said:

Are we sure? The text of the order seems to suggest that a TRO is one point of discussion (emphasis mine):

 

"35 - Feb 21, 2023 - Notice and Order: The Court is in receipt of 33 Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing filed on February 17, 2023 for consideration by this Court. This matter is set for status conference/motion hearing via Zoom on Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. CST to discuss the aforementioned motion as well as consolidation of the four cases for discovery and pretrial remedies including TROs and/or other injunctive relief. Zoom invitations will be sent under separate cover. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/21/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/21/2023)"

 

Maybe I'm reading the judge wrong, but it seems significant that he desires to discuss a TRO.

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it seems like this is more of a status hearing to make sure everyone is on the same page. I can’t imagine the judge would rule on a TRO when the state hasn’t responded to the motion yet. The judge extended that to march

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:30 PM, MrTriple said:

Are we sure? The text of the order seems to suggest that a TRO is one point of discussion (emphasis mine):

 

"35 - Feb 21, 2023 - Notice and Order: The Court is in receipt of 33 Agreed Motion for Entry of Proposed Stipulation Regarding Coordinated Preliminary Injunction Briefing filed on February 17, 2023 for consideration by this Court. This matter is set for status conference/motion hearing via Zoom on Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. CST to discuss the aforementioned motion as well as consolidation of the four cases for discovery and pretrial remedies including TROs and/or other injunctive relief. Zoom invitations will be sent under separate cover. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/21/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/21/2023)"

 

Maybe I'm reading the judge wrong, but it seems significant that he desires to discuss a TRO.

 

Help us Obi Vander Kenobi.   There seems to be some confusion.  

[apex84]

I'm not sure if this is the correct thread, but saw this on Twitter.

 

 

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pantagraph.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/40/540f1228-ba0e-11ed-8087-0f1b1093ae21/64026d2e16eee.pdf.pdf

[Molly B.]

This is the right place!  Thank you!

[jcable2]

News Articles are saying this applies State Wide. Hopefully that is true. Will need to see shortly and how fast they appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. 

[steveTA84]

On 3/3/2023 at 5:22 PM, jcable2 said:

News Articles are saying this applies State Wide. Hopefully that is true. Will need to see shortly and how fast they appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. 

Looks like it!!!