Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

On 3/4/2023 at 10:49 PM, Molly B. said:

 

Thanks for posting that Molly, I’m sure there were a lot of heated discussions with FFL’s and people wanting to make purchases. 
People can read about the weird Brown case where the ruling applied to only person. I wonder if Caulkins case goes the same way, where it only applies to him and his group. Caulkins case doesn’t have any TRO’s, I wonder if they will ask for one while the courts thinks about how to dodge this one. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2023 at 10:26 PM, Tvandermyde said:

the court heard the motion and issued an order:

 

Defendants opening brief due 3/20
 
Plaintiff response due 4/13
 
Defendants response due 4/27
 
Oral Arguments second week of May no date. 
 
So we should have Duncan, Miller, Rhode and Bianchi by then as well as maybe a PI in our case
 

Yep!! Good stuff!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back on topic, it would seem that there could be a decision (and even a preliminary injunction) in Barnett before the State Supreme Court has rendered a decision, with the possibility of a preliminary injunction long before oral arguments are even scheduled. I'm still wondering why McGlynn hasn't issued an injunction yet, but I suspect it has to do with the briefing schedule. Can anyone clarify this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see ISRA is saying a TRO was issued in the case. Has anyone seen said TRO from the Judge?

 

"In the Macon County assault weapons case, Caulkins et al v J.B.Pritzker et al, the new law has been ruled unconstitutional by Judge Rodney Forbes.  Judge Forbes has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the gun ban and registry.  The TRO covers all citizens in the State of Illinois, not just the named plaintiffs.  This case will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court and expected to be heard in May."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 11:41 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I see ISRA is saying a TRO was issued in the case. Has anyone seen said TRO from the Judge?

 

"In the Macon County assault weapons case, Caulkins et al v J.B.Pritzker et al, the new law has been ruled unconstitutional by Judge Rodney Forbes.  Judge Forbes has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the gun ban and registry.  The TRO covers all citizens in the State of Illinois, not just the named plaintiffs.  This case will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court and expected to be heard in May."

 

I have not seen any and as usual Devore just posted there isn't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 11:41 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I see ISRA is saying a TRO was issued in the case. Has anyone seen said TRO from the Judge?

 

"In the Macon County assault weapons case, Caulkins et al v J.B.Pritzker et al, the new law has been ruled unconstitutional by Judge Rodney Forbes.  Judge Forbes has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the gun ban and registry.  The TRO covers all citizens in the State of Illinois, not just the named plaintiffs.  This case will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court and expected to be heard in May."

In the case information page at the top is " Chancery - Restraining Order ", but I do not see an "Order" in the case history.

So.... Not sure if there is or isn't.

Here is the link to the court case history.

https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL058015J&ocl=IL058015J,2023CH3,IL058015JL2023CH3P1

Here is the link for the case information.

https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_information.jsp?court=IL058015J&ocl=IL058015J,2023CH3,IL058015JL2023CH3P1

   

 

Edited by mab22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 11:41 AM, Tvandermyde said:

I see ISRA is saying a TRO was issued in the case. Has anyone seen said TRO from the Judge?

 

"In the Macon County assault weapons case, Caulkins et al v J.B.Pritzker et al, the new law has been ruled unconstitutional by Judge Rodney Forbes.  Judge Forbes has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the gun ban and registry.  The TRO covers all citizens in the State of Illinois, not just the named plaintiffs.  This case will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court and expected to be heard in May."

 

 

The last i heard,  Judge Forbes issued the original TRO, and has now issued a final ruling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 12:41 PM, Tvandermyde said:

I see ISRA is saying a TRO was issued in the case. Has anyone seen said TRO from the Judge?

...

 

The only TRO I see on the docket is:

 

02/08/2023  Clerk presents file this date. Court reviews Plaintiffs' proposed order. Finding that the proposed order is unopposed by Defendants Pritzker and Raoul. Court adopts the finding and order as presented. Plantiffs' combined motion is granted in part and denied in part. 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. In all other respects, the combined motion is denied without prejudice. On court's motion, cause is contined for status. RSF
Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So Caulkins made the comment in the video that the AG had to state that the law is no longer valid in order to make this type of appeal to the IL Supreme Court. 

 

IANAL, Is that a part of the process in filing that appeal to the supreme court?    If so, then the ILSP should not be enforcing the law.   

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no need for a TRO from the same court has already ruled it unconstitutional as the runing of unconstitutional entirely moots the laws enforcement as if if never existed, the only question is who does that unconstitutional ruling apply to.  At the very least it applies to every listed plaintiffs, until the IL Supreme Court stays that ruling or rules otherwise.  I would argue that it 'should' apply to all in the state, but I'm not familar with how far the lower courts 'jurisdiction' extends in constitutional applications across the counties and state overall, I would assume it has to also at least apply to the entire county or whatever jurisidication that judge resides over, over and above the listed plaintiffs that is shoudl absolutely apply to...

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 1:57 PM, Euler said:

 

The only TRO I see on the docket is:

 

02/08/2023  Clerk presents file this date. Court reviews Plaintiffs' proposed order. Finding that the proposed order is unopposed by Defendants Pritzker and Raoul. Court adopts the finding and order as presented. Plantiffs' combined motion is granted in part and denied in part. 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. In all other respects, the combined motion is denied without prejudice. On court's motion, cause is contined for status. RSF

So it only applies to the plaintiffs, not the rest of the state, based on the wording, correct?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISRA

ISRA said:

...

From the Law Firm of DAVID G. SIGALE, P.C.

"After reviewing with counsel the Macon County Circuit Court's decision, based on how the decision is not explicitly limited to one named person or group of persons and based on how the Opinion clearly finds the challenged law unconstitutional on a facial basis as opposed to being unconstitutional as-applied to any particular person or persons, the ISRA believes that the Macon County decision is meant to be read to apply to all persons in the State. We acknowledge that the language therein also seems aimed towards facilitating an Illinois Supreme Court review, and we are confident that the skillful attorneys representing the plaintiffs will successfully present their arguments to that Court at the appropriate time."

...

 

It seems that we can point to Sigale as the source of Pearson's (mis)information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an opinion now that the judge made his final ruling finding the two sections banning firearms and magazines facially unconstitutional rather than as applied to the plaintiffs.

 

That would lead one to think the ruling is effective throughout the state.  However, that doesn't seem to be clear to everyone.  So,  that leaves me concerned,  not so much for individuals but for our firearm dealers whose licenses can be revoked by the state in the midst of this confusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 11:14 PM, Molly B. said:

There is an opinion now that the judge made his final ruling finding the two sections banning firearms and magazines facially unconstitutional rather than as applied to the plaintiffs.

 

That would lead one to think the ruling is effective throughout the state.  However, that doesn't seem to be clear to everyone.  So,  that leaves me concerned,  not so much for individuals but for our firearm dealers whose licenses can be revoked by the state in the midst of this confusion. 

Unless we have an actual signed order as evidence I think this only add’s to the confusion. 
I think we should be concerned for ALL , purchasers AND FFL’s, I’m sure the buyers and thinking the FFL’s are uninformed, and the FFL’s are thinking the buyers are uninformed, leading to bad business relationships leading to frustration all around. 
 

Perhaps we should leave it as applied to the plaintiffs only until there is an actual PDF with words of the order AND a judge’s signature in the case record.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my phone started blowing up after Pearson's pronouncements. Dealers are confused and I don't see ISRA or Segale offering free representation and reparations for being shutdown when ISP or ATF claim the dealer acted illegally. 

 

I know my club raised issues with ISRA and they were seeking clarification, so the above statement appears to have came about after the publication and people questioned it. All this does is add to the confusion. 

 

April 12th can't get here fast enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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