SCOTUS involvement in Naperville IL firearm ban

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,757
    True, but 4CA may be intentionally sitting on its decision waiting for other courts to weigh in on similar issues first. Same as may be happening in the MoCo case.
    At this point I don't think they are sitting on it. A quick look at appeals courts typically take 6 months as the average to render a decision after all briefs and hearings have been submitted and been held. No clue if 4ca is above or below average.

    IIRC the hearing was in December, so we are only sitting around 6 months now. Lots and lots of decisions take a year. Writing decisions, especially if they want them to be GOOD decisions takes a long time. Especially because you have 3 judges involved who may want their own say in what is in the decision. At a minimum, two of them are going to have input.

    I am impatient as heck, but if we hear before the end of the summer I'll be surprised. Generally "no rights for you" decisions get written much faster. Doesn't make me happy that it might be another 3-6 months before we hear. And then if we win, the state will appeal for an en banc, which I half imagine 4ca will grant based on their composition, which will add another 6-18 months for briefings, hearings, and a decision.

    Enter my opinion it'll be 2-3 SCOTUS terms before SCOTUS gives us the final decision. In some ways an appeals court decision against us would speed it up because we could appeal directly to SCOTUS and skip an en banc appeal. Always possible the larger 4ca denies an en banc because they don't want to put all their names on something SCOTUS might slap upside their head.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,962
    Marylandstan


    Professor Smith explains why Justice Amy Coney Barrett has likely noticed these same mistakes in her review of the matter.

    STAPLES v. UNITED STATES Held: To obtain a § 5861(d) conviction, the Government should have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Staples knew that his rifle had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun. Pp. 604–619.
     

    LeadSled1

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 25, 2009
    4,281
    MD
    7CA puts a hold on Judge McGlynn’s block he put on the new law.

     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    31,150
    7CA puts a hold on Judge McGlynn’s block he put on the new law.

    This will not make the 7CA look well in the eyes of SCOTUS. McGlynn's argument was made in lockstep with Bruen, and appears unassailable to my untrained mind.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,351
    My guess is this will increase the likelihood that Justice Barrett as the over site justice of the 7th Circuit will take some action either in Naperville, the McGlynn's case or the third case that is in the Illinois courts. The Naperville response is due May 8th so we will see.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,302
    Davidsonville
    Is this unusual? I was recently told here @mds that the SCT does not "step in" so to say (in regards to Hawaii's version of SB-1 going into effect), there has to be a lawsuit progression through the courts.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,473
    Montgomery County
    Is this unusual? I was recently told here @mds that the SCT does not "step in" so to say (in regards to Hawaii's version of SB-1 going into effect), there has to be a lawsuit progression through the courts.
    There is a suit in play, and the plaintiffs requested the attention of the SCOTUS under the circumstances.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,757
    There is a suit in play, and the plaintiffs requested the attention of the SCOTUS under the circumstances.
    In this case, SCOTUS can step in, because the district and circuit courts have weighed in on a preliminary injunction (denied). That can then, and has been, appealed to SCOTUS for a decision on a PI.

    NY avoided this because the circuit court there is dragging its feet on a preliminary injunction. They struck down the PI that the district court issued and have been now slow rolling briefings and an opinion on a PI.

    In Chicago, district court ruled no PI necessary as plaintiffs aren't being injured and not likely to win. Appealed to 7CA, who quickly ruled the same. That opens it for SCOTUS review. In NY it got referred to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS basically said that they won't step in because the Circuit court has not issued a final ruling on a PI, but hurry up. If they don't hurry, then litigants can again ask SCOTUS to step in.

    So here we are, SCOTUS has fair review without "stepping" on any lower court toes.
     

    LeadSled1

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 25, 2009
    4,281
    MD
    FFS. Page 1 The 2 step is dead how do they not understand that :-(
    And that the 2A is equal to the 1A.

    “Then, to support the existence of an emergency, applicants rely on a presumption of irreparable harm that this Court has never applied outside of First Amendment cases, again demonstrating that their right to relief is not indisputably clear. “
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,757
    And that the 2A is equal to the 1A.

    “Then, to support the existence of an emergency, applicants rely on a presumption of irreparable harm that this Court has never applied outside of First Amendment cases, again demonstrating that their right to relief is not indisputably clear. “
    That's funny. I seem to recall courts also considering other of the bill or rights for injunctive relief on an emergency basis. 4th amendment claims for example.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,987
    Fulton, MD
    7CA wants Barrett to do their homework for them. I'm not sure they'll like the answers.

    If you want egg on your face, this is how you get egg on your face.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,201
    Anne Arundel County
    7CA wants Barrett to do their homework for them. I'm not sure they'll like the answers.
    Not 7CA as a whole, but definitely Judge Easterbrook, who has been a problem child for years. There were other judges in 7CA who made Illinois shall-issue well before Bruen. The AWB mess is all on Easterbrook's hands and hopefully the SCOTUS rebuke will be personal.
     
    Last edited:

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,962
    Marylandstan

    :thumbsup: reasoning.

    Even still, Illinois (in its emergency stay motion below) has made little more than a now-forbidden interest-balancing argument, suggesting that a mass shooting could result if its ban on so-called “assault weapons” is enjoined even temporarily. Emergency Mot. to Stay Prelim. Inj. Pending Appeal, Barnett v. Raoul, No. 23-1825, at 19 (7th Cir. May 2, 2023). Unsurprisingly, the State provided no analysis of the potential self-defense benefits of such firearms. There is, of course, always a danger that deranged individuals will commit horrific crimes, whether with the firearms Illinois and Naperville have outlawed, with other firearms it still permits, or with different objects entirely. But the potential criminal abuse of a constitutional right alone cannot be reason enough to snuff out that right. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 783 (2010) (“[t]he right to keep and bear arms … is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.”) See also Bruen, 2126 at n.3. As this Court made absolutely clear in Heller, it is “aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country. . .. The Constitution leaves the [government] a variety of tools for combating that problem. . .. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008)

    CONCLUSION
    For these reasons, and those further laid out in the amicus of National Shooting Sports Foundation, this Court should grant the application. May 8, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,893
    Messages
    7,300,102
    Members
    33,534
    Latest member
    illlocs33

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom