Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

IL: GOA vs Raoul 7th Circuit Upholds Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • AlmostHeaven
    Veteran Member
    • Apr 2023
    • 3808

    IL: GOA vs Raoul 7th Circuit Upholds Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

    The court found that Illinois’ controversial gun law survived the first part of a two-step test laid out in a crucial June 2022 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.


    Finding that "even the most important personal freedoms have their limits," the federal appeals court in Chicago on Friday sided with Illinois in legal challenges aimed at blocking the state's nearly year-old assault weapons ban.

    "Government may punish a deliberately false fire alarm; it may condition free assembly on the issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid identification card; and it may punish child abuse even if it is done in the name of religion," Judge Diane P. Wood wrote. "The right enshrined in the Second Amendment is no different."

    The court heard arguments over the assault weapons ban in late June. The three-judge panel seemed to struggle at the time with guidance laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in a crucial decision handed down in June 2022.

    In that decision, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court found that gun regulations must be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

    Opponents of the Illinois law argued that the decision forbade governments from banning weapons that are "in common use." But Judge Diane Wood remarked that it was "very troublesome to have a popularity contest decide a constitutional principle."

    Judge Frank Easterbrook questioned one lawyer about whether a Depression-era law against machine guns, following their use in Chicago's St. Valentine's Day massacre and other mob hits, was unconstitutional.

    "They were especially common in Chicago," Easterbrook said of weapons like the Thompson submachine gun.

    One of the lawyers challenging the ban countered that such weapons were not found in the hands of law-abiding citizens but "gangsters and mobsters." She also wrote in briefs ahead of the hearing that state governments historically declined to ban semiautomatic weapons, even while banning automatics.

    State lawyers argued in their own briefs that "there is a well-established tradition pre-dating the Founding era whereby a weapon is introduced into civilian society, proliferates to where it causes a substantial threat to public safety, and is then regulated to curb the public harm stemming from its use."

    Illinois' law bans the sale of assault weapons and caps the purchase of magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns. Anyone who already owns the banned guns is allowed to keep them but required to register them with the Illinois State Police by Jan. 1.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.
  • #2
    BobB35
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2008
    • 780

    so is this a final ruling or a ruling denying an injunction.

    From what I can tell the deciding factor is some mysterious line where weapons are either military type or civilian type and they court said AW fall on the military side of the line...therefore not covered by 2A. Not sure where that test comes from?

    We find substantial support for the proposition that the
    Arms protected by the Second Amendment do not include
    weapons that may be reserved for military use. We already
    have pointed to language in the Supreme Court’s opinions to
    Case: 23-1353 Document: 170 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pages: 95

    Nos. 23-1353 et al. 29
    this effect.6 The dissent, relying heavily on Staples v. United
    States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), contends that the Court has already
    decided that the AR-15 is in common use, and thus that the
    weapon is presumptively immune from regulation. See post at
    67. We see no such holding in Staples.


    AND

    Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and
    feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy
    Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen
    analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this
    conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity

    magazines are much more like machineguns and military-
    grade weaponry than they are like the many different types

    of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the

    legislature was entitled to conclude).8



    then they give a weak historical augment including all the Bowie, cannon, out of the time range crap etc.

    I guess my question is...does this now go straight to SCOTUS for CERT?

    Comment

    • #3
      rplaw
      Senior Member
      • Dec 2014
      • 1808

      Originally posted by BobB35
      so is this a final ruling or a ruling denying an injunction.

      From what I can tell the deciding factor is some mysterious line where weapons are either military type or civilian type and they court said AW fall on the military side of the line...therefore not covered by 2A. Not sure where that test comes from?

      We find substantial support for the proposition that the
      Arms protected by the Second Amendment do not include
      weapons that may be reserved for military use. We already
      have pointed to language in the Supreme Court?s opinions to
      Case: 23-1353 Document: 170 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pages: 95

      Nos. 23-1353 et al. 29
      this effect.6 The dissent, relying heavily on Staples v. United
      States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), contends that the Court has already
      decided that the AR-15 is in common use, and thus that the
      weapon is presumptively immune from regulation. See post at
      67. We see no such holding in Staples.


      AND

      Coming directly to the question whether the weapons and
      feeding devices covered by the challenged legislation enjoy
      Second Amendment protection, at the first step of the Bruen
      analysis, we conclude that the answer is no. We come to this
      conclusion because these assault weapons and high-capacity

      magazines are much more like machineguns and military-
      grade weaponry than they are like the many different types

      of firearms that are used for individual self-defense (or so the

      legislature was entitled to conclude).8



      then they give a weak historical augment including all the Bowie, cannon, out of the time range crap etc.

      I guess my question is...does this now go straight to SCOTUS for CERT?
      It's the new 2 step

      1. Is the arm protected? If no, interest balancing. If yes go to step 2

      2. THT test.


      Nothing ever gets past step 1.


      It's a final appellate decision so the plaintiff's can request cert. Good news is that the court failed to consider and apply US v. Miller __________ (1939) for the holding that the 2A encompasses arms suitable for military use. Both Heller and Bruen upheld that decision.
      Last edited by rplaw; 11-03-2023, 4:51 PM.
      Some random thoughts:

      Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far.

      Evil doesn't only come in black.

      Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

      My Utubery

      Comment

      • #4
        AlmostHeaven
        Veteran Member
        • Apr 2023
        • 3808

        I would absolutely love to see this ruling appealed to the Supreme Court. Second Amendment organizations have an opportunity to preempt the recalcitrant First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals by nullifying their deliberate political gamesmanship in the form of endless delays.

        If the Supreme Court grants certiorari to this case, the en banc machinations in California stop mattering, at least for Duncan v. Bonta and Miller v. Bonta specifically.
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.

        Comment

        • #5
          TrappedinCalifornia
          Calguns Addict
          • Jan 2018
          • 7493

          ROBERT BEVIS, et al. v CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS and JASON ARRES and THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

          I think the dissent is going to be critical vis a vis any appeal to SCOTUS. That begins on Page 51 and there is far too much to quote. The question becomes whether SCOTUS is 'finally' going to be ready to wade into the so-called 'assault weapons' furor and if this case provides a sufficient basis/reach for them to do so.

          Comment

          • #6
            Sgt Raven
            Veteran Member
            • Dec 2005
            • 3752

            sigpic
            DILLIGAF
            "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
            "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
            "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

            Comment

            • #7
              Sgt Raven
              Veteran Member
              • Dec 2005
              • 3752

              Originally posted by AlmostHeaven
              I would absolutely love to see this ruling appealed to the Supreme Court. Second Amendment organizations have an opportunity to preempt the recalcitrant First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals by nullifying their deliberate political gamesmanship in the form of endless delays.

              If the Supreme Court grants certiorari to this case, the en banc machinations in California stop mattering, at least for Duncan v. Bonta and Miller v. Bonta specifically.

              If Illinois had lost I'm sure they would have played the en banc delaying game. Since we lost, SCOTUS here we come. 2024 looks like the year of the 2A at SCOTUS. Cert for 3 so far and more pending review.
              sigpic
              DILLIGAF
              "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
              "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
              "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

              Comment

              • #8
                AlmostHeaven
                Veteran Member
                • Apr 2023
                • 3808

                Originally posted by Sgt Raven
                If Illinois had lost I'm sure they would have played the en banc delaying game. Since we lost, SCOTUS here we come. 2024 looks like the year of the 2A at SCOTUS. Cert for 3 so far and more pending review.
                I have never been so relieved to have received a disfavorable judgment in a gun rights case.

                A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Sgt Raven
                  Veteran Member
                  • Dec 2005
                  • 3752




                  sigpic
                  DILLIGAF
                  "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                  "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                  "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    BobB35
                    Senior Member
                    • Nov 2008
                    • 780

                    So this wasn't a final judgement case. This was an injunction case. So if there is an appeal to SCOTUS...they can just ignore it and send it back to the District and say...finish this before we rule on the merits.

                    2 to 4 years still is my guess. And this isn't ahead of the CA case at this point.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      AlmostHeaven
                      Veteran Member
                      • Apr 2023
                      • 3808

                      Bianchi v. Frosh has made the most progress, but the Fourth Circuit has managed to send the final judgment into a state of limbo for the past 11 months.
                      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                      The Second Amendment makes us citizens, not subjects. All other enumerated rights are meaningless without gun rights.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        morthrane
                        Senior Member
                        • Feb 2006
                        • 954

                        Same state, same circuit as Friedman v. Highland Park? No surprises...

                        Highland Park, Illinois prohibits possession of assault weapons or large‐capacity magazines (those that can accept more than 10 rounds). The ordinance defines an assault weapon as any semi‐automatic gun that can accept a large‐capacity magazine and has: a pistol grip without a stock (for semi‐ automatic pistols, the capacity to accept a magazine outside the pistol grip); a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; a grip for the non‐trigger hand; a barrel shroud; or a muzzle brake or compensator. Some weapons, such as AR‐15s and AK‐47s, are prohibited by name. Opponents sought to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial, stating that the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” Supreme Court precedent allows at least some categorical limits on the kinds of weapons that can be possessed. Instead of trying to decide what “level” of scrutiny applies, the court considered whether the law banned weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” and whether law‐abiding citizens retain adequate means of self‐defense. Whether the limits expressed in Supreme Court precedent should be extended is a question for the Justices.


                        (It was one of the most laughable decisions of all time, only more hysterically stupid post Bruen. Almost as funny as SCOTUS refusing cert...)

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Sgt Raven
                          Veteran Member
                          • Dec 2005
                          • 3752

                          sigpic
                          DILLIGAF
                          "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                          "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                          "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            curtisfong
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Jan 2009
                            • 6893

                            Originally posted by morthrane
                            Same state, same circuit as Friedman v. Highland Park? No surprises...

                            Highland Park, Illinois prohibits possession of assault weapons or large‐capacity magazines (those that can accept more than 10 rounds). The ordinance defines an assault weapon as any semi‐automatic gun that can accept a large‐capacity magazine and has: a pistol grip without a stock (for semi‐ automatic pistols, the capacity to accept a magazine outside the pistol grip); a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; a grip for the non‐trigger hand; a barrel shroud; or a muzzle brake or compensator. Some weapons, such as AR‐15s and AK‐47s, are prohibited by name. Opponents sought to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance, arguing that it violated the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial, stating that the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” Supreme Court precedent allows at least some categorical limits on the kinds of weapons that can be possessed. Instead of trying to decide what “level” of scrutiny applies, the court considered whether the law banned weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” and whether law‐abiding citizens retain adequate means of self‐defense. Whether the limits expressed in Supreme Court precedent should be extended is a question for the Justices.


                            (It was one of the most laughable decisions of all time, only more hysterically stupid post Bruen. Almost as funny as SCOTUS refusing cert...)
                            We know, for example, that semi‐automatic guns with large‐capacity magazines enable shooters to fire bullets faster than handguns equipped with smaller magazines. We also know that assault weapons generally are chambered for small rounds (compared with a large‐caliber handgun or rifle), which emerge from the barrel with less momentum and are lethal only at (relatively) short range. This suggests that they are less dangerous per bullet?but they can fire more bullets. And they are designed to spray fire rather than to be aimed carefully.
                            Well that is an interesting finding of fact.
                            The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

                            Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Sgt Raven
                              Veteran Member
                              • Dec 2005
                              • 3752

                              What a dumb *** sob. Per the 1970s SOP of the US Army Infantry, the M16A1 was designed to be carefully aimed in most combat situations. Our basic load out was either nine 20 round or seven 30 round mags. We didn't carry enough ammo to be spray firing our rifles.
                              sigpic
                              DILLIGAF
                              "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
                              "Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
                              "The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1