Re: IL law enjoined

2
PICA [Protect Illinois Communities Act] seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens.
A well written opinion, hope the 7th Circuit upholds it.
McGlynn's decision came less than a week after another federal judge, Lindsay Jenkins, of the Northern District of Illinois, reached an opposite conclusion and denied a motion to halt enforcement of the law. Plaintiffs in that case have indicated they intend to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We have a federal judge ruling one way. We have two federal judges ruling another way. It's going to be appealed to the seventh circuit, and of course the next level of appeal above the seventh circuit is the United States Supreme Court. This is probably the most significant moment in what will be an ongoing battle," said ABC7 legal analyst Gil Soffer.
https://abc7chicago.com/illinois-assaul ... /13193444/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

4
featureless wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:14 am The number of judges that are employing interest balancing is gross. In common use for lawful purposes is a pretty simple test for hardware bans.
Agree. I know the world be safer and our country if the likes of trump and his followers didn’t have rights. That’s still an interest balance that shouldn’t be considered. There are other means to ensure safety that doesn’t mean removing rights or making rights into privileges. Doing so leads to authoritarianism and a society based on privilege. I don’t think creating a ruling class is a solution, it’s a huge step backwards.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: IL law enjoined

8
Interesting Bevis vs City of Naperville, IL the district court decision 2/17/2023 that led to the appeal above. The judge was appointed by W to a vacancy on the Northern District of IL, Chicago. Some quotes:
As set forth below, although the plaintiffs have standing to bring this lawsuit, they are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim because Naperville’s Ordinance and the Protect Illinois Communities Act are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition.
Neither the balance of equities nor the public interest decisively favors the plaintiffs. On the one hand, they suffer an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right. Again though, the financial burden and loss of access to effective firearms would be minimal. On the other side, Illinois and Naperville compellingly argue their laws protect public safety by removing particularly dangerous weapons from circulation.
“[T]he district court should focus on whether a critical public interest would be injured by the grant of injunctive relief.”
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... -Order.pdf

They asked for an emergency injunction while the 7th Circuit reviews their appeal, the 7th Circuit denied it. Lawyers then petitioned SCOTUS via Barrett who oversees the 7th Circuit. And then an opposite decision issued on 4/28/2023 on PICA from a judge in the Southern District of IL, Springfield appointed by Trump. The case is Barnett v Raoul.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

9
Yeah, it's a confusing mess. I am hopeful SCOTUS will weigh in. Unlike the NY carry restrictions they passed on, AWBs have been fully briefed, run all the way up the ladder to SCOTUS (Bianchi) and GVRd. And they are popping up all over the place. If we are to presume keep and bear are constitutional and protected under common use per Bruen, there is no justification for not enjoining these challenged laws while they make their way through the courts. I am hopeful SCOTUS will say so.

To add, all the lower court judge did was interest balancing. Pretty gross. And CA7 stamped approval with zero analysis. So there are already splits on how to proceed, even at the injunction level.

Re: IL law enjoined

10
Since the request through Barrett is for an emergency injunction, they generally respond quickly. Roberts doesn't like to bypass the circuit courts and since the split is between districts courts in the same circuit, they'd likely leave the cases there. Who knows, they could combine it with AW bans from other states
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

11
highdesert wrote: Wed May 03, 2023 2:55 pm Since the request through Barrett is for an emergency injunction, they generally respond quickly. Roberts doesn't like to bypass the circuit courts and since the split is between districts courts in the same circuit, they'd likely leave the cases there. Who knows, they could combine it with AW bans from other states
Ordinarily I'd agree. However, with Miller in California, Bianchi in NJ still to be resolved plus Washington's new AWB, they may find enough is enough.

Isn't that sort of how Obergefell v. Hodges went? Mass efforts to ban or legalize gay marriage and the court stepped in? I know circuit courts had all sorts of rulings on gay marriage, but the pace was similar.

Re: IL law enjoined

12
Who knows for certain except that the justices are talking about this emergency request. Recall the recent US district court ruling overturning New York's new concealed carry law. The state appealed to the 2nd Circuit and the 2nd stayed the ruling until a panel could hear it. The original plaintiffs made an emergency appeal to SCOTUS to overturn the stay and block the law, but the court wouldn't interfere. IIRC Thomas and Alito dissented.

In June 2013 - US v Windsor - SCOTUS invalidated the part of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that restricted the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages (SSM,) in this case it was a New York marriage. In December 2013 - An Obama appointed US district judge in Utah overturned a state referendum and legalized SSM. Utah appealed it to the 10th Circuit which upheld the decision. On October 6, 2014, SCOTUS denied cert petitions from 5 states appealing circuit court rulings and SSM was then legal in 30 states. Obergefell was a 6th Circuit case and made it legal nationwide.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

15
featureless wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 12:43 pm This was kicked up to SCOTUS on an emergency appeal. SCOTUS requested a response from the state. All relevant docs at this link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2a948.html

In essence, the state argues AWs aren't protected because they are dangerous. Plaintiffs call BS. It's now in SCOTUS' hands to see if they will tolerate the lower courts' BS or intervene.
Hopefully they will act appropriately and call on the BS.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: IL law enjoined

17
sikacz wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 1:33 pm
featureless wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 12:43 pm This was kicked up to SCOTUS on an emergency appeal. SCOTUS requested a response from the state. All relevant docs at this link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2a948.html

In essence, the state argues AWs aren't protected because they are dangerous. Plaintiffs call BS. It's now in SCOTUS' hands to see if they will tolerate the lower courts' BS or intervene.
Hopefully they will act appropriately and call on the BS.

Yup, there are a few possible directions it could go. SCOTUS could reject it and leave it with the 7th Circuit along with Barnett vs Raoul; they could grant the injunction which would halt the enforcement of the law until it's adjudicated in the 7th Circuit; grant the injunction and schedule it with Barnett to be argued before SCOTUS... I expect we'll hear from SCOTUS this week.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

18
highdesert wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 11:27 am
sikacz wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 1:33 pm
featureless wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 12:43 pm This was kicked up to SCOTUS on an emergency appeal. SCOTUS requested a response from the state. All relevant docs at this link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2a948.html

In essence, the state argues AWs aren't protected because they are dangerous. Plaintiffs call BS. It's now in SCOTUS' hands to see if they will tolerate the lower courts' BS or intervene.
Hopefully they will act appropriately and call on the BS.

Yup, there are a few possible directions it could go. SCOTUS could reject it and leave it with the 7th Circuit along with Barnett vs Raoul; they could grant the injunction which would halt the enforcement of the law until it's adjudicated in the 7th Circuit; grant the injunction and schedule it with Barnett to be argued before SCOTUS... I expect we'll hear from SCOTUS this week.
At a minimum, SCOTUS needs to clarify the "test." IL is making a huge mess of "in common use for lawful purposes" (as are several other states). There is no need for additional briefing or testimony to see that. I'm really hoping for direction that these stupid hardware bans be enjoined while the states defend them under history and tradition. They so obviously fall under text and common use it's painful. It the states want to flail around with analogous laws, that's fine, but not with an unconstitutional law in place. The burden is on the state, not the people.

Re: IL law enjoined

19
featureless wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 12:35 pm
highdesert wrote: Tue May 09, 2023 11:27 am
sikacz wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 1:33 pm
featureless wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 12:43 pm This was kicked up to SCOTUS on an emergency appeal. SCOTUS requested a response from the state. All relevant docs at this link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 2a948.html

In essence, the state argues AWs aren't protected because they are dangerous. Plaintiffs call BS. It's now in SCOTUS' hands to see if they will tolerate the lower courts' BS or intervene.
Hopefully they will act appropriately and call on the BS.

Yup, there are a few possible directions it could go. SCOTUS could reject it and leave it with the 7th Circuit along with Barnett vs Raoul; they could grant the injunction which would halt the enforcement of the law until it's adjudicated in the 7th Circuit; grant the injunction and schedule it with Barnett to be argued before SCOTUS... I expect we'll hear from SCOTUS this week.
At a minimum, SCOTUS needs to clarify the "test." IL is making a huge mess of "in common use for lawful purposes" (as are several other states). There is no need for additional briefing or testimony to see that. I'm really hoping for direction that these stupid hardware bans be enjoined while the states defend them under history and tradition. They so obviously fall under text and common use it's painful. It the states want to flail around with analogous laws, that's fine, but not with an unconstitutional law in place. The burden is on the state, not the people.
Yes, the opinion in Bevis v Naperville which is now called National Association of Gun Rights v City of Naperville (NDIL), didn't have much of a historical analysis justifying the ruling. On the other hand Barnett v Raoul (SDIL) was written much better.

There is a third case Herrera vs Raoul challenging Illinois' new PICA law. The decision was issued on April 25th also in the Northern District of IL (Chicago) by a Biden appointee. So two decisions in the No District of IL supported the new PICA law and one decision in the So District of IL blocked the new law. Conflicting decisions from three district courts in IL and the 7th Circuit seems in no hurry to make a decision. We'll see what SCOTUS has to say.
'
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 429768/75/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

20
The number of attorneys listed on the SCOTUS web page is growing, I noticed Clement & Murphy are now listed. Paul Clement won the Bruen case at SCOTUS, but his law firm Kirkland & Ellis weren't happy about it. K&E is the largest law firm in the world and Clement was a partner, but they pushed him out. Clement and Erin Murphy started their own law firm. The anti-gun world is large and influential.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

21
Illinois enacted a statewide ban earlier this year, but it has since been blocked in state and federal court. It has also faced substantial backlash from Illinois sheriffs, a majority of which say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

NAGR was denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected the gun-rights group’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the group is making the same request to the Supreme Court.

If the Court does issue an injunction against the ordinance, it will signal similar bans adopted by ten states are unconstitutional. That could upend the debate over gun control in America, which has largely centered around prohibitions on the AR-15 and similar guns. But, while Barrett’s request for a brief increases the odds the case will see action, most cases where briefs are requested do not get a full hearing.
https://thereload.com/supreme-court-req ... apons-ban/

The SCOTUS justices in chambers could decide to grant an injunction blocking enforcement of the IL law while it's being heard at the 7th Circuit, or if it's the end of the road for PICA declare that bans on "assault rifles" are unconstitutional throughout the US. Or they could deny the request and leave it with the 7th Circuit and deal with it after the 7th Circuit makes its decision.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: IL law enjoined

22
highdesert wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 11:48 am
Illinois enacted a statewide ban earlier this year, but it has since been blocked in state and federal court. It has also faced substantial backlash from Illinois sheriffs, a majority of which say they won’t enforce the ban because they consider it unconstitutional.

NAGR was denied a preliminary injunction against the Naperville ordinance in February, and the Seventh Circuit rejected the gun-rights group’s request to block enforcement of the law while its appeal is being processed. Now, the group is making the same request to the Supreme Court.

If the Court does issue an injunction against the ordinance, it will signal similar bans adopted by ten states are unconstitutional. That could upend the debate over gun control in America, which has largely centered around prohibitions on the AR-15 and similar guns. But, while Barrett’s request for a brief increases the odds the case will see action, most cases where briefs are requested do not get a full hearing.
https://thereload.com/supreme-court-req ... apons-ban/

The SCOTUS justices in chambers could decide to grant an injunction blocking enforcement of the IL law while it's being heard at the 7th Circuit, or if it's the end of the road for PICA declare that bans on "assault rifles" are unconstitutional throughout the US. Or they could deny the request and leave it with the 7th Circuit and deal with it after the 7th Circuit makes its decision.
The constitutional rights of the people in 10 states plus DC are currently denied but the ongoing AWB fiasco wherein lower courts are not applying in common use for lawful purposes defined in Heller. This denies both keep and bear of the most commonly owned long arm in the country. Let's hope SCOTUS "does something."

Re: IL law enjoined

23
Plaintiffs' response was filed: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Reply.pdf

Very well done. Perhaps the best nugget is this:
The State points out that since Bruen, the lower courts have almost uniformly denied relief as to the Illinois law and similar laws in other states. St. Resp. 11. It is unfortunate but hardly surprising that the lower courts have been upholding plainly unconstitutional laws burdening Second Amendment rights. In Bruen, this court noted that if the history of Second Amendment litigation had taught it anything, it is that in the Second Amendment context, lower courts are far too willing to defer to the government. Id., 142 S. Ct. at 2131. For example, in the Ninth Circuit the government was 50-0 in post-Heller Second Amendment challenges. See Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087, 1165 (9th Cir. 2021).20 Old habits die hard, and despite this Court’s clear mandate in Bruen, lower courts continue to defer to the government
when Second Amendment rights are abridged. The State believes this is a reason to deny the Application. Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that this is perhaps the best reason to grant it
.

Re: IL law enjoined

24
Moms Demand Action, a Bloomberg funded anti-gun group was out in force on Saturday.
The group can be heard chanting “No one needs an AR-15!” and “Ban assault weapons!” as they marched through Burbank, and at times, stopping in front of gun shops.
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/southe ... e-weapons/

Bloomberg called them to action and there were protests in CA, NV, NJ, NC, MA, ME, AR, CT and many others. Michael Bloomberg is one of the top billionaires in the US and has the money to fund multiple anti-gun groups including Moms, Everytown.... This was timed to be just before Mothers Day.


Image
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests