SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Illinois HB5855 AWB and magazine ban, 7th Circuit Court upholds ban 2-1, 11/03/23, full "en banc" DENIED 12/11/23, SCOTUS denies injunction 12/14/23
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Illinois HB5855 AWB and magazine ban, 7th Circuit Court upholds ban 2-1, 11/03/23, full "en banc" DENIED 12/11/23, SCOTUS denies injunction 12/14/23 Login/Join 
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Also there could be news out very soon from California on their AWB and magazine ban being heard by Judge Benitiz which could affect Illinois and other states in a positive way.

https://www.thecentersquare.co..._campaign=user-share


"Oral arguments Apr. 12 for consolidated federal gun ban challenges
Macon County case stands alone with March 3 hearing in state court.


(The Center Square) – The state has until Thursday to reply to plaintiffs in four federal lawsuits that are looking for injunctive relief against Illinois’ gun ban and registry. Oral arguments have been set for mid-April in the consolidated cases.

Three of the four state-level cases are consolidated with the standalone Macon County case still on track for a status hearing March 3.

On Jan. 10, Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted a ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and certain magazine capacities and required a registry of banned guns by Jan. 1, 2024. A stack of lawsuits were filed in both state and federal courts.

Friday, the Southern District of Illinois federal court consolidated the cases from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association, the Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and a case out of Crawford County that was transferred from state court to federal court. Barnett et. al v. Raoul will be the lead case.

Federal Judge Stephen McGlynn set the schedule for the state to answer the Second Amendment charges.

"The important thing is, I don't need to be papered to death on this," McGlynn said during a conference call with plaintiffs and defendants Friday.

Attorneys with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office, representing Pritzker and Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, are to respond to a motion from plaintiffs for injunctive relief by March 2, and March 16 to answer charges the law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Todd Vandermyde is consulting for plaintiffs in the Illinois Gun Rights Alliance case against the ban. He said the judge seems on top of the issues.

“I don't think he’s going to be rushed, but I think he’s going to give everybody the opportunity to get everything into the record to build the case because he knows this is going up on appeal,” Vandermyde told the Center Square.

The Fifth and 14th Amendment allegations from the Crawford County case that the law violates rights against self incrimination and rights of equal protection will come out at a later date, McGlynn noted.

Vandermyde said that was about case management.

“And it’s another set of briefings that we don’t have to deal with and argue here,” Vandermyde said. “It’s already complicated enough.”

Oral arguments in the federal case will happen in East St. Louis at 1:30 p.m. April 12.

In the state-level challenges to the gun and magazine ban, all four cases that have been filed have temporary restraining orders issued against the state preventing enforcement of the law, but only for certain plaintiffs.

Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court denied attorney Thomas DeVore’s motion to consolidate his three cases with a case from state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur, out of Macon County.

DeVore contends his aim is to build a record to successfully challenge the law in front of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Caulkins case isn’t. While subpoenas are issued with motions to quash playing out, DeVore said he’s going to amend his case to narrow his arguments.

“Since we’re going to amend anyway to reduce it to those narrow arguments, we’re going to give people a chance to join in if they want to,” DeVore told The Center Square.

DeVore’s first case out of Effingham County secured a temporary restraining order for 866 plaintiffs. A state appellate court sided with the TRO on the grounds equal protection arguments have a likelihood of success. That ruling was followed by another TRO DeVore secured for 1,690 plaintiffs in White County and an additional batch of hundreds more plaintiffs in a second Effingham County case.

Attorney Jerry Stocks for Caulkins, which secured a TRO out of Macon County, said he has a fundamental disagreement with DeVore’s approach. Stocks said his objective is to secure the maximum amount of citizens protection while the constitutional question works out.

“A person shouldn’t be protected from an unconstitutional law only because they paid Mr. DeVore $200,” Stocks told The Center Square."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not sure how this will play out: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8be851cedcad53&ei=10

Seems to be some difference of opinion as to what/who this ruling applies to as well.
 
Posts: 915 | Location: Midwest | Registered: April 13, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Yeah I guess we will find out more soon and the AG has already filed an emergency appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Not sure many gun stores will be acting on this right away as they could be putting their FFL license at risk if it is not totally legit as a statewide ban and one that may be very short lived anyway.
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 915 | Location: Midwest | Registered: April 13, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Interesting video on how Prizker donated millions to a couple democrat candidates for Illinois Supreme Court, both who are now justices.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Update: State and federal cases now being heard. Todd V gives more details and feels good about the judge in the federal case. Let's keep our fingers crossed for good news fairly soon. Also still waiting for Judge Benitez to release his ruling any time now from California about AWB (Miller v Bonta) and magazine ban that could have major implications for all states.

Also a couple guys on Twitter that have good info on Second Amendment activity. Greg Bishop mostly for Illinois along with other Illinois political activity and Kostas Moros on Second Amendment activity for everywhere.

https://twitter.com/bishoponair

https://twitter.com/MorosKostas

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Big news today. This will most likely be appealed to the 7Th Circuit Court of Appeals but it looks like our chances of getting a fair hearing there are pretty good from what I have read. I am sure we will here more soon from Todd Vandermyde for his expert take on this and what it means for us in Illinois concerning this awful law.

https://www.thecentersquare.co...37-9f846d6fface.html

Federal judge blocks Illinois' gun and magazine ban while case continues
By Greg Bishop | The Center Square 37 min ago

(The Center Square) – Illinois’ gun and magazine ban is on hold after a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction.

The case could be appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where a similar challenge is pending.


Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted a ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities on Jan. 10. A week later, lawsuits challenging the law were filed in state and federal courts. In the Southern District federal courts, four plaintiffs groups' cases were consolidated and heard by Judge Stephen McGlynn in East St. Louis earlier this month.

On Friday, McGlynn granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the law statewide.

“Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction,” McGlynn wrote. “They have shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11), (14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court can address the merits.”


Messages to Pritzker’s office, and the office of Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul were not immediately returned.

It’s expected the state will appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court has the case brought by Law Weapons owner Robert Bevis. Bevis sued Naperville last fall and amended his complaint to include a challenge to the state’s ban. In February, Northern District federal Judge Virginia Kendall ruled in favor of the state and Naperville and against the plaintiffs, saying the state met the burden that the banned firearms are dangerous and can be banned under the history and tradition of how the U.S. regulated firearms.

McGlynn saw things different from Kendall.

“Although Defendants challenged the veracity of Plaintiffs’ evidence, they were unable to produce evidence showing that modern sporting rifles are both dangerous and unusual. Consequently, Defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the 'arms' banned by [Protect Illinois Communities Act] are ‘dangerous and unusual’ and thus not protected by the Second Amendment,” McGlynn wrote.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied to grant Bevis a preliminary injunction against the law and Naperville’s ordinance while the case was on appeal.

Earlier this week, a separate case from Cook County was decided by a Northern District judge siding with the state, the city of Chicago and Cook County.

Several cases are pending in Illinois state court, with one from Macon County challenging the law up for oral arguments in the Illinois Supreme Court May 16.
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
SCOTUS is getting involved in Naperville gun ban after receiving request for injunction from a Naperville gun store and National Foundation for Gun Rights via Amy Coney Barrett. Sparse detail right now as I have only seen this source. Naperville has until May 8th to respond to her.

EDIT added video: As always Mark Smith has excellent analysis. He says don't expect SCOTUS to overturn lower court stay for now, but SCOTUS is sending strong message to 7th circuit court where Illinois gun ban lawsuits and injunction are going to be appealed to. Much more when be learned after May 8th.



This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Illinois AWB back in fill force as 7th circuit court stays injunction.

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/.../1654227277788467203

LEGAL ALERT: The Seventh Circuit has stayed the preliminary injunction against Illinois' "assault weapon" and magazine bans "pending further order of the court." The court also requested a response to Illinois' motion by 5/9:
 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
Link

Supreme Court allows Illinois 'assault weapons' ban to take effect

Illinois' ban will remain in effect while lower courts consider its constitutional status

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Illinois' ban on "assault weapons" to take effect temporarily on Wednesday.

The ruling allows the Illinois law to remain in effect while lower courts deliberate on its constitutional status. Wednesday's ruling comes after a gun shop owner in Illinois requested an injunction against the ban.

The Illinois law bans the sale and new possession of semi-automatic "assault weapons." Those who already legally own such weapons would not have to turn them in. The law also bans the sale of large capacity magazines.

The court did not offer an explanation for its Wednesday decision, and there were no noted dissents.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) a legal group associated with the gun store that requested an injunction, expressed disappointment with Wednesday's ruling. The group remains committed to fighting Illinois' ban, however.

"Any action the Supreme Court would have taken at this point would only have been temporary and not on the merits of the case itself. Clearly, the Supreme Court is watching the issue closely and we look forward to appealing very soon on the merits if the 7th Circuit rules against us – as the signs currently point to," said Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the NFGR.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is currently considering the case. The request for an injunction went to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Illinois passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act on Jan. 10, banning the sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery and importation of "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines, with exceptions for law enforcement, military members and certain other professionals with firearm training. The legislation specifically names the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles and requires lawful owners of semi-automatic rifles to register their ownership with state police.

The 7th Circuit has yet to issue a final ruling on the Illinois law, but its decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTS INJUNCTION TEMPORARILY BLOCKING ENFORCEMENT OF ILLINOIS GUN LAW

Judge Stephen Patrick McGlynn, a Trump appointee in Illinois' Southern District, had initially granted the injunction earlier in May. Appellate Judge Frank Easterbrook then reversed McGlynn's ruling, a decision that has now been supported by both the 7th Circuit and the Supreme Court.

McGlynn's ruling had argued that Illinois' law infringed on the right to self-defense and, in some cases, "completely obliterated that right by criminalizing the purchase and the sale of more than 190 'arms.'"



 
Posts: 23109 | Location: Florida | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Spread the Disease
Picture of flesheatingvirus
posted Hide Post
Chess, not checkers. The quick legal solution is rarely the best. I’m curious to see where this goes.


________________________________________

-- Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --
 
Posts: 17204 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: October 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gone but Together Again.
Dad & Uncle
Picture of h2oys
posted Hide Post
So if my brother in law who lives in IL does not want to register what he has with the state of IL, can he simply gift them to me or just have me store them as I live in the State of MO while all this plays out?
 
Posts: 3670 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: November 24, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by h2oys:
So if my brother in law who lives in IL does not want to register what he has with the state of IL, can he simply gift them to me or just have me store them as I live in the State of MO while all this plays out?


I'll bet all the armed gangsters in Illinois who live out side the law are thinking the same at this time.

/sarcasm.


*********
"Some people are alive today because it's against the law to kill them".
 
Posts: 8228 | Location: Arizona | Registered: August 17, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by h2oys:
So if my brother in law who lives in IL does not want to register what he has with the state of IL, can he simply gift them to me or just have me store them as I live in the State of MO while all this plays out?


Don't see why not, unless there is some law prohibiting the storage of them out of IL, since he'd still own them, so he's not transferring or selling them,

Sounds like he just came over to go to the range, or hunting and left them for safe keeping...



 
Posts: 23109 | Location: Florida | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
WOW, according to Mark W Smith the 7TH Circuit Court hearing with the three judge panel was a real shit show to day and they are going to uphold the ban. More details in the video below. Go to 11:15 if you want the short summary of his view.

 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Down the Rabbit Hole
Picture of Jupiter
posted Hide Post
Does the Illinois AWB only apply to Semi-auto weapons? What about those that have Class 3 full auto. firearms?


Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

 
Posts: 4820 | Location: North Mississippi | Registered: August 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter:
Does the Illinois AWB only apply to Semi-auto weapons? What about those that have Class 3 full auto. firearms?


There is no legal Class III in IL for civilians.
 
Posts: 915 | Location: Midwest | Registered: April 13, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Down the Rabbit Hole
Picture of Jupiter
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by M1Garandy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter:
Does the Illinois AWB only apply to Semi-auto weapons? What about those that have Class 3 full auto. firearms?


There is no legal Class III in IL for civilians.


Thanks M1Garandy.

Illinois is even more screwed up than I thought.


Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

 
Posts: 4820 | Location: North Mississippi | Registered: August 09, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Not surprising most anyone the 7th upheld the Illinois AWB by by vote of 2-1. Todd V has details in his video below and he is hoping that it is directly appealed to SCOTUS from here.

BTW just announced today SCOTUS is taking up the bump stock ban case this session! Mark Smith discusses below and believes it will also have major impact on the revised pistol brace rules by the ATF.



 
Posts: 9719 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by M1Garandy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jupiter:
Does the Illinois AWB only apply to Semi-auto weapons? What about those that have Class 3 full auto. firearms?


There is no legal Class III in IL for civilians.


An FFL with an SOT in IL would allow the FFL holder to have full-auto weapons. He just can’t sell them to anyone but another SOT holder or a gov’t agency.
 
Posts: 60 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: August 30, 2023Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Illinois HB5855 AWB and magazine ban, 7th Circuit Court upholds ban 2-1, 11/03/23, full "en banc" DENIED 12/11/23, SCOTUS denies injunction 12/14/23

© SIGforum 2024