2A watch: Appeals court to hear challenge to IL "AWB" & magazine ban TODAY

[748rpilot]

This case is Barnett v Raoul and is a 3 panel hearing (which everyone expects the plantiffs to lose for political reasons).

Barnett v Raoul challenges the IL PICA act which bans semi-auto rifles, magazines over specific capacity, and other things, like pistols with threaded barrels. It is the first of multiple cases which will be heard this week.

This is the same case that was previously heard by District Court Judge McGlynn, who ruled for the plantiffs.

This hearing is especially important and noteworthy because the US DOJ will be presenting arguments ON BEHALF OF THE PLANTIFFS, against the State of IL. It could also be the case that gets "AWB" bans before USSC.

 

[BCP]

Yeah while all of us are paying attention to Charlie Kirk we shouldn’t forget stuff like this is still happening in the background.

 

[748rpilot]

Live now:

 

[748rpilot]

Attorney for the State just implicitly admitted that AR15s are in common use for lawful purposes by noting that the plantiffs self-defense experts operate business that conduct training classes where AR15s are a prerequisite to take the class.

A justice just asked if the State's attorney can point to any founding era law or regulation prohibiting the carry or ownership of firearms, "consistent with Bruen".

State's attorney is so far only focusing on the self-defense aspect and so far has not addressed any other lawful purpose for keeping and possessing.

 

[91Eunozs]

I’m sorry, but I can’t get past how the State’s attorney makes every statement a question… little girl/valley girl dialect.

But the plaintiff’s attorney is coming across as nervous, and unsure. Edit: She’s getting better as she just starts discussing facts, but the judges keep sidetracking/distracting her. Seems intentional.

Edit 2: her arguments re: how any changes to how firearms operate are actually very, very good. Really like how she says that changes that make firearms more accurate or easier to use are good, and in line with the 2A, and that any restrictions that should be discussed should only address weapons or devices that can kill or damage indiscriminately…like hand-held nuclear weapons.

Loved that line! LoL

Her 2A based arguments are on point. It’s clear she’s much more conversant on the actual Constitutional arguments.

Love how she’s redirecting the judges questions back to The Constitution.

 

[748rpilot]

Plantiffs attorney is up now and Holy shit she sounds spun up...idk if that's a good thing.

 

[Smokeshot]

Easterbrook is a piece of shit. I heard that he's still pissed about not getting picked over ACB for SC. What a joke - all the panel judges are appointed by Republican presidents and won't stay true to the Constitution.

That piece of shit just asked, "What's the state supposed to do if there's a new laser gun in the market?"

 

[748rpilot]

I don't like that even the plantiffs attorney is focused solely on the self-defense aspect. That is a misrepresentation of the test as laid out in Bruen: common use for any lawful purpose. Not sure why "our" side gets led into the self-defense trap.

 

[91Eunozs]

Judges were clearly more aligned with the State’s arguments… Kept interrupting the Plaintiff’s lawyer, and were much more polite to the State’s attorney.

Will see how it pans out, but methinks we’ll need to go to the next level for relief.

 

[748rpilot]

I may be too legally ignorant to understand the maneuvering here, but I'm frustrated by the fact that both plantiff attorneys said it is OK with them if the scope of the District courts injunction was reduced to only include their clients.

It seems to me as if that's conceeding a bit on the issue of constitutionality and also would seem to create two separate classes of people; those who can, and those who cannot, posses "assault weapons".

I do like that AUSAG asserted that it is the governments opinion that any such gun ban is on its face unconstitutional. She also mentioned several times that the 2nd Amendment protects firearms for any lawful purpose.

The original plantiffs attorney also put forth, in response to a question about common use, that it is up to the will of the people to decide what arms they wish to keep, it is not the right of the government to decide which arms may be kept by the people.

This was a good distinction to make because it shifts the burden of proof from the people in pursuit of keeping their arms, to the government in pursuit of banning them. That is, the people have only to say "because I choose it", while the government has to show there is historical, founding-era tradition to support the ban.

I'm cautiously optimistic...

 

[Mongo68]

I hope it works out!

But being here in Kalifornia-Stan, I’m guessing it will need to go to SC.

 

[91Eunozs]

… The original plaintiff's attorney also put forth, in response to a question about common use, that it is up to the will of the people to decide what arms they wish to keep, it is not the right of the government to decide which arms may be kept by the people …

Agree…that part was very powerful and well articulated.

 

[mosin46]

this is the usual gov inspired BS. i don't know when the 1st "anti" law or reg appeared. none of the clowns involved over a long time seem to understand the words and concept "shall not be infringed". once the 1st of these regs appeared,we have been in a constant hassle over the 2nd that has kept us from going down the hole that the UK,Russia,Asia,basically the rest of the world has been in for centuries.

 

[748rpilot]

Thinking more about this, it's actually insane that a court would say "the constitution applies to you, and this law doesn't, only if you're a paid member of this private club".

How is that in any way acceptable.