Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion

[mab22]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:15 AM, Tvandermyde said:

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

 

Perhaps we can top listening to third parties like Joey Bagadonughts and go straight to Calukins and co. for clarification and ask for a copy of the restraining order and or status of the CURRENT order so we can see what it says?

 

[stockboyy]

in event of ambiguity it should to the plaintiff.

[Jeffrey]

clear as mud

Leave it to Illinois to make everything as ****** up and confusing as humanly possible.

[Talonap]

Did anyone ask the judge?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

When I read the judges decision  I thought yippie yippie! we are free for the time being.  

 

The ILAG then made their statement that it wasn't state wide. The ISP statement also doesn't give any clarification when they could have just answered with a yes or a no regarding enforcement of the AWB. 

 

They don't want any cracks appearing in the dam. It is an optics thing... the dems understand optics. 

 

No FFL is willing to risk selling and losing their license, and the legal fees, with the uncertainty that the ISP may still be enforcing the law.  

 

 

 

 

[tiberius]

On 3/10/2023 at 11:39 AM, Talonap said:

Did anyone ask the judge?

It doesn’t seem like it……one wonders why the plantiffs, at least, haven’t. Can they still ask for a TRO pending appeal?  

[Molly B.]

On 3/10/2023 at 3:41 PM, tiberius said:

It doesn’t seem like it……one wonders why the plantiffs, at least, haven’t. Can they still ask for a TRO pending appeal?  

 

 

They don't need a TRO when the firearm and magazine ban has been facially struck down as unconstitutional.

[ealcala31]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:21 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

They don't need a TRO when the firearm and magazine ban has been facially struck down as unconstitutional.

Why is it that no one is recognizing this judges order? I would be willing to go back to business as usual but what assurances does any FFL have that we are not going to get jammed up?

[Molly B.]

That's the bad thing about the unknowns.  Pritzker has our gun dealers in a bad spot until the courts make this clear. 

[ealcala31]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:08 PM, Molly B. said:

That's the bad thing about the unknowns.  Pritzker has our gun dealers in a bad spot until the courts make this clear. 

So what part of this is the unknown? Why haven't the dealers and IL Gun Owners jumped at this ruling? From reading the above replies, is it that there are specific plaintiffs involved so the ruling is not considered statewide or is everyone looking for a specific TRO/Injunction...

Edited March 11, 2023 at 02:17 PM by ealcala31

[mab22]

There are enough people here, high up in the food chain so to speak, that I would think could contact caulkins, and or his attorney to get the answers. Has anyone tried to contact them to get clarification?
 

[THE KING]

Has an actual written opinion by the court been put out yet? 

 

Considering there's multiple interpretations by multiple lawyer's, maybe the judge should clarify who this ruling actually affects. 

 

I agree with others that have said that if this facially unconstitutional it should apply state wide.  

[Molly B.]

On 3/11/2023 at 8:17 AM, ealcala31 said:

So what part of this is the unknown? Why haven't the dealers and IL Gun Owners jumped at this ruling? From reading the above replies, is it that there are specific plaintiffs involved so the ruling is not considered statewide or is everyone looking for a specific TRO/Injunction...

 

The unknowns are what the ISP and Kwame Raoul is and will do in the mean time.  They appear to be targeting the already greatly reduced number of FFL dealers who are at extreme risk of losing their businesses.  They are operating from their own interpretations.  I am of the opinion, until we get a ruling in federal court or IL Supreme Court, they will continue to do this.

 

A TRO is a temporary halt while the judge prepares his final ruling. This judge cannot issue another TRO because he has already issued his final ruling. The state is ignoring it until the IL Supreme Court rules on it - it's gonna be very amusing if the IL Supreme Court adheres to Bruen . . .

 

[Molly B.]

1_2023-CH-000003 JUDGMENT.pdf1_2023-CH-000003 JUDGMENT.pdf

[THE KING]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:42 AM, Molly B. said:

1_2023-CH-000003 JUDGMENT.pdf1_2023-CH-000003 JUDGMENT.pdf 101.19 kB · 4 downloads

Thanks for posting this.  

 

Being facially unconstitutional I think everyone is correct that this is applied statewide.  

 

It would be nice if the judge clarified this. 

[powderhead]

He may be intentionally ambiguous.  Who knows?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

And the AG's Office and ISP aren't being forthcoming with a direct statement about enforcement. The ISP statement regarding enforcement could apply to any case.  Right now it looks like the ISP is still enforcing the law:  https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/81347-hb5471-gets-even-worse-for-ffls/

 

 

The AG's office is trying to have it both ways.   According to Caulkins' legal team, in order to get this type of appeal before the ILSC the AG's office has to acknowledge to the supreme court that the law is null and void and unenforceable.  By being ambiguous, the AG gets a fast track while still being able to enforce the law, or at least threaten to enforce it.

 

 The democrats are also experts when it comes to controlling the optics.  Perception often becomes reality, and they don't want any cracks appearing in the dam.  

 

     

 

[Flynn]

On 3/11/2023 at 3:54 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

And the AG's Office and ISP aren't being forthcoming with a direct statement about enforcement.

 

This is nothing new, anyone that has been around for a while saw this repeat when Illinois was told not offering carry was unconstitional, yet Illinois pretended that the UUW was still applicable and wouldl be enforced even though it was unconstitutional.

 

I'm not saying anyone should jump in line to be a test case, but it's going to be quite telling when the IL Supreme Court case actually gets going.  If the IL Supreme Court doesn't stay the lower court's ruling or clarify it, it's going to get even more fuzzy.  Wherever the cards fall, I hope Caulkins can get the IL Supreme Court to chime in and clarify things sooner than later.

[jcable2]

Thomas Devore has been ranting constantly on Facebook that any lawyer who says other than him is wrong. I would think we could trust DAVID G. SIGALE on this seeing his record on 2nd amendment case lawsuits. Tom is claiming all 2nd amendment specialist lawyers will side with him, but David is siding with Caulkins. In my opinion Tom has shown his true colors, it is all about the money for him. 

[mab22]

On 3/11/2023 at 6:35 PM, jcable2 said:

Thomas Devore has been ranting constantly on Facebook that any lawyer who says other than him is wrong. I would think we could trust DAVID G. SIGALE on this seeing his record on 2nd amendment case lawsuits. Tom is claiming all 2nd amendment specialist lawyers will side with him, but David is siding with Caulkins. In my opinion Tom has shown his true colors, it is all about the money for him. 

 

And yet Caulkins and CO. have not uttered a word on the ruling amid all the "confusion", have they?

So lets blame Devore for everything!

We do have this which states that it only applies to the defendants, but <Prepare for sarcasm /> HEY GET DEVORE, GET 'EM, IT'S ALL HIS FAULT! 🙄

 

[Talonap]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:54 AM, THE KING said:

Thanks for posting this.  

 

Being facially unconstitutional I think everyone is correct that this is applied statewide.  

 

It would be nice if the judge clarified this. 

 

Could someone PLEASE, just ask the JUDGE?

[mauserme]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:57 PM, mab22 said:

 

And yet Caulkins and CO. have not uttered a word on the ruling amid all the "confusion", have they?

So lets blame Devore for everything!

We do have this which states that it only applies to the defendants, but <Prepare for sarcasm /> HEY GET DEVORE, GET 'EM, IT'S ALL HIS FAULT! 🙄

 

 

I understand some will disagree with him, but he did say this

 

 

[jcable2]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:57 PM, mab22 said:

 

And yet Caulkins and CO. have not uttered a word on the ruling amid all the "confusion", have they?

So lets blame Devore for everything!

We do have this which states that it only applies to the defendants, but <Prepare for sarcasm /> HEY GET DEVORE, GET 'EM, IT'S ALL HIS FAULT! 🙄

 

There is absolutely no need for Devore's behavior. His constant whining and then posting "letters" from FFL'S saying he is right and they are all just his clients. Honestly who do you think has more experience and is more believable Devore or Siegel? Siegel has been to the Supreme Court and has done multiple 2nd amendment cases. He has why more credibility than Devore and more knowledge on the second amendment court cases. You notice Devore will call out Caulkins and ISRA but will not say a word about how ISRA for their opinion from Single. He says they got it from Caulkins. Devore even went as far yesterday to post a Photoshopped picture of Caulkins and JB shaking hands. Devore ego has become over inflated and now thinks he specializes in the 2nd amendment and constitutional law. He ignores how he said in the Mask case that the ruling from the district judge applied statewide. He now claims a district judge cannot make a statewide ruling. He flipped on what he is saying. He keeps repeating the lie that everyone paid Caulkins $200 that went to his campaign fund, but almost no one donated any money. There was over 2,000 names on Caulkins lawsuit and less than 20 had donated and only a few had donated $200. I know one of the FFL'S that is in Tom's case and I saw some of the emails he sent them after Caulkins got the TRO and than the final ruling. Just going to say those emails where not pretty. 

[mauserme]

Rep. Caulkins said, and the ISRA alluded to the AG agreeing to something as a method to appeal directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The fact that the state probably doesn't intend to just let that be the final word might be where Devore is coming from.  The way I read this is that the law is invalidated, at least for now.  The state would like to change that if they can.

 

 

 

 

 

[Flynn]

On 3/12/2023 at 11:51 AM, mauserme said:

Rep. Caulkins said, and the ISRA alluded to the AG agreeing to something as a method to appeal directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The fact that the state probably doesn't intend to just let that be the final word might be where Devore is coming from.  The way I read this is that the law is invalidated, at least for now.  The state would like to change that if they can.

 

Just a wild guess, but to get a fast track to the IL Supreme Court, one would assume that the final ruling of the judge is statewide, why else would the state be so eager to skip the normal appeals process if it was only applicable to the few named plaintiffs and the law was still in effect for everyone else?

 

I'm not giving legal advice or telling anyone what to do, but I personally believe the law is unconstitutional statewide right now and the state is just bluffing by omission that the law is still somehow in effect to coerce compliance.  All that could change on a dime though, all the IL Supreme Court would need to do is issue a stay on the lower court ruling until they rule.

[mab22]

On 3/12/2023 at 11:51 AM, mauserme said:

Rep. Caulkins said, and the ISRA alluded to the AG agreeing to something as a method to appeal directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The fact that the state probably doesn't intend to just let that be the final word might be where Devore is coming from.  The way I read this is that the law is invalidated, at least for now.  The state would like to change that if they can.

 

I think your probably correct.
And didn’t Segal also have ISRA retract it’s statement about this applying statewide?

Devore mentioned in one of his updates that Caulkins agreed to forgo procedural and other things to fast track to IL SC. So that could also be affecting things. 
Then we have the post about the State Police enforcing the law here. 

According to this you would think it’s state wide. But it would be best to ask the attorney that you will hire if this is incorrect. 
https://ij.org/cje-post/facial-unconstitutionality-universal-injunctions/
 

Quote

FACIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

When a court holds that a law is facially unconstitutional, it is holding that the law cannot be enforced at all, and not merely as applied to the situation of a particular plaintiff. When such a remedy is justified is a matter of extensive debate, and often turns on the nature of the law being challenged. In some cases a challenger must show that the law would not be valid under any circumstances. In others the challenger must show that the law does not have a “plainly legitimate sweep.” And in the First Amendment context, the challenger must prove only that many applications of the law would be unconstitutional.

And this is why there is no “order”, if this is correct.

It wouldn’t make sense for a court to have it apply to a limited set of people.

Quote

Whichever of these standards applies, one thing is clear: it is a high bar to meet. At a minimum, it requires showing that a law is unconstitutional in many of its applications. But when a plaintiff does meet that bar, a court should strongly consider issuing a universal injunction preventing the enforcement of the law against anyone. In fact, in nearly all circumstances, it would make no sense for a court to find that a law is facially unconstitutional and yet enjoin the enforcement of the law only against the particular person (or people) who brought the challenge.

 

[mab22]

On 3/12/2023 at 10:53 AM, jcable2 said:

There is absolutely no need for Devore's behavior. His constant whining and then posting "letters" from FFL'S saying he is right and they are all just his clients. Honestly who do you think has more experience and is more believable Devore or Siegel? Siegel has been to the Supreme Court and has done multiple 2nd amendment cases. He has why more credibility than Devore and more knowledge on the second amendment court cases. You notice Devore will call out Caulkins and ISRA but will not say a word about how ISRA for their opinion from Single. He says they got it from Caulkins. Devore even went as far yesterday to post a Photoshopped picture of Caulkins and JB shaking hands. Devore ego has become over inflated and now thinks he specializes in the 2nd amendment and constitutional law. He ignores how he said in the Mask case that the ruling from the district judge applied statewide. He now claims a district judge cannot make a statewide ruling. He flipped on what he is saying. He keeps repeating the lie that everyone paid Caulkins $200 that went to his campaign fund, but almost no one donated any money. There was over 2,000 names on Caulkins lawsuit and less than 20 had donated and only a few had donated $200. I know one of the FFL'S that is in Tom's case and I saw some of the emails he sent them after Caulkins got the TRO and than the final ruling. Just going to say those emails where not pretty. 

Devore is not attacking this as a 2A case, it’s based on equal protection. It’s also a case that is trying to stop the congress from passing things and obscuring things from the public by hiding them in shell bills, which I have an issue with. I really don’t care about his behavior, outside the court room,  if he is effective in getting things done. 

[mauserme]

On 3/12/2023 at 4:09 PM, mab22 said:

...

Then we have the post about the State Police enforcing the law here. 

...

 

 

Instead of being done under the gun ban that might be under dealer licensing which hasn't challenged, yet.

 

 

 

[mab22]

On 3/12/2023 at 4:33 PM, mauserme said:

 

Instead of being done under the gun ban that might be under dealer licensing which hasn't challenged, yet.

 

 

 

😆 even more confused now, I thought these cases/law prohibited transfer period. Is there another way for them to enforce if the a AWB ban is found unconstitutional? 

[mauserme]

On 3/12/2023 at 5:05 PM, mab22 said:

😆 even more confused now, I thought these cases/law prohibited transfer period. Is there another way for them to enforce if the a AWB ban is found unconstitutional? 

 

Sorry, I could have said that better.

 

I'm thinking that inspecting the 4473's and bound books might be more a function of the dealer licensing law.  I wasn't talking about transfers per se, which caused some confusion.