Anyone following the AW cases out of IL

[Metal god]

I'm surprised we are not talking about these cases . U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has asked for briefs in two cases and has already distributed one ( Caulkins vs Pritzker ) to conference for the full court Jan 5th 2024. Which is an AWB case and this is the latest IL supreme court ruling on the case published Aug 11 2023 .
https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.win...4924/Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453.pdf


The other case I believe is Bevis vs Naperville .

I have the states response filed yesterday here
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...esponse to Renewed Emergency Motion Final.pdf

but can't find much more right now

Video of Youtuber talking about them a little
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f67MjpqQ-8

Anyways these seem like pretty big/important cases that have SCOTUS at least looking closely at them which seems like a big deal . Does anyone else think these are a big deal or am I just overly wishfully thinking ?

 

[DaleA]

I'm surprised we are not talking about these cases.

Well, there's LOTS of stuff going on...the nuns trying to shutdown S&W...plus the season, plus, for me, this stuff is just a bit legally complicated...I usually come to this site to get a better understanding of the 'nuances' of cases.

All that said, I agree and hope some of the legal folk here will chime in.

 

[natman]

The Illinois cases are following the same pattern of most AW ban cases. A district court follows Heller and Bruen and issues an injunction to overturn the ban. The state argues that:

The 2nd only covers self defense. (instead of "lawful purposes").
"AW"s not protected by 2nd because they are not commonly "used" for self defense. ("Used" is redefined as actually fired).
Weapons that are dangerous OR unusual may be banned (instead of dangerous AND unusual).
"M16s and the like may be banned", quoted out of context from Heller and since AR15s are like M16s (well, they look like M16s and that's enough), and are "weapons of war" they are therefore super duper dangerous.
Using wildly inapplicable historical analogues from inapplicable time frames.
And a bunch of interest balancing, despite it being explicitly banned by Bruen.

It is appealed and the appeal court stays the injunction (allows the ban to remain), then sits on the case as long as they can, hoping that the composition of the Supreme Court will change in their favor.

The plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS asking to have the stay repealed. This has been tried in other cases, but SCOTUS does not like to get involved in cases on an interlocutory basis (before the case is finalized). Eventually SCOTUS is going to get tired of all the stalling. Will this be the time? We'll see.

 

[Metal god]

I just remembered that the stat chose not to file a brief in the Caulkins case ????? Um is that wise ? That is the case that has been now distributed for conference . Should we not get something like the government got in Miller when miller “ did not show “ . With the state not filing the brief a sitting SCOTUS judge asks for , how does that generally sit with the justices ? Id feel a bit disrespected not to mention now SCOTUS only has one point a view to consider right ? Sounds like a easy layup injunction to me .

 

[Paul B.]

MG.IIRC, Miller was a no show because he was dead. I remeber reading an article in one of the gun magaizes a few years back the Mr. Miller had was found dead and it was considered a murder case. BTW, the case is unsolved. Doess make one think.
Paul B.

 

[44 AMP]

The Miller case is a good example of what happens when only one party shows up.

At the time of the SCOTUS hearing, Miller was "in the wind" (not known to be dead at that time, just gone..) and the lawyer who represented him in the lower courts (pro bono, I've heard) either could not, or would not do it before SCOTUS.

Take a look at the Miller decision as the court wrote it, and do note the court justified their ruling with the phrase "this court had been presented no evidence"....so they ruled in favor of the govt and let the NFA 34 stand, complete, and as written. They did not rule on the Constitutionality of the NFA 34. at all.

 

[Metal god]

Great ….. lets hope they follow there own precedent on this case . The state is not dead but they basically chose not to show up .

 

[Metal god]

BTW, the case is unsolved. Does make one think.

Back then killing the ones you want silenced was not uncommon . Now a days “they” start with character assassination and if that doesn’t work ….. suicide .

 

[44 AMP]

Back then killing the ones you want silenced was not uncommon .

Sure, that kind of thing happened, likely still does.

But you might also consider that Miller was a moonshiner, who happened to get raided when he wasn't running his still and the only thing the Feds found they could charge him with was the sawed off shotgun, so that's what they did.

Folks in the line of work Miller was in often came to bad ends, because of deals that went bad, or just ticking off the wrong guy. The more modern equivalent are the drug cookers and dealers, who frequently take each other out for profit or to avenge some perceived insult.

Miller was not a big time criminal, not one of the major "players". His only claim to fame is the fact that his case wound up getting to the SCOTUS, and well after he was not directly involved. Outside of legal circles and people who have been affected by some provision of the NFA 34 his name and circumstances mean nothing.

Murder is a local matter. Its a rare thing (other than in TV shows) where the feds get involved, let alone lead the investigations. Its not at all beyond the realm of possibility that where ever Miller turned up dead, the local cops didn't work very hard trying to find the killer of another "low-life" who came to a bad end. I have no idea what Miller did in the time between his court case and his demise, but somehow I doubt he was a paragon of virtue and a model citizen. Even if he had been, the fact that his murder went unsolved wasn't something exceptional generations ago.

 

[Metal god]

I think questioning who and what Miller did during the case before it got to SCOTUS would be interesting.

Was he involved , present and cared about the outcome still that late in the process ? If he was all of those things it would seem odd that he just up and disappeared, why were there no inquiries and maybe a delay ? On the other hand , hand he barely even cared about the case and was just used as a plaintiff like so many are now . One could disappear and most would never notice .

Does anyone know how much interest surrounded the case at the time and the fact the plaintiff had completely vanished with out a trace ?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Miller wasn't represented at the SCOTUS hearing because he was dead. It's as simple as that. Don't over-analyze.

 

[Metal god]

simple as that haha

or maybe as simple as this ???
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

 

[Metal god]

Turns out the plaintiffs in Bevis petitioned both the 7th circuit for En-banc and SCOTUS for emergency review at the same time . Today the seventh circuit denied the En-banc request. So it’s up to ACB now .

Interesting because had the granted ACB would likely have denied but now SCOTUS is the only remedy left . Not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing but one thing for sure is that it is a thing ;-)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

ACB???

Acute Chronic Boredom?

Accelerated Consolidation Behavior?

 

[Metal god]

Acute cranial bombardment

I guess you’re not following this thread or SCOTUS very closely these days

ACB = Amy Coney Barrett , that’s been going around since her confirmation , sorry about that . I don’t know why everybody wants to use her full name when usually you just use the justices last name, although…… there was RBG haha maybe its a woman thing .

 

[heyjoe]

I had no idea what ACB was either.

 

[44 AMP]

Not sure how it was in your family, but in mine, you knew you were in trouble for something when Mom used all three of your names!!

Likewise, in the US we frequently use all three names when referring to notorious criminals, or just people we don't much like, and using the entire middle name instead of just an initial is for emphasis.

This isn't any kind of hard and fast rule, just something often done, and which is not applied evenly or consistently.

Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth are classic examples. You almost never see these people named without all three full names being used.

People who are more well regarded (in the viewpoint of the writer) most often are referred to by just first & last names, or even nicknames, and when being more formal including the middle initial. Spelling out the entire middle name shows some kind of stigma, it seems.

Also, the entire name is often used when there is some kind of accusation involved.

Though, I think, mostly, its a matter of whether or not the given name "rolls off the tongue" (or makes a good sound bite).

For example, its Al Capone, not Alphonse Gabriel Capone. Its Ted Bundy, not Theodore Robert Bundy. I think its mostly what ever the writer thinks will play best to their audience, and with historical figures, whatever the convention of past usage is.

There are also instances where a person's entire name is their preferred form of reference. Or first, middle initial and last are what some people want to be called, to distinguish them from other people with similar names.

Identifying someone just by their initials only works in context, and only AfTER that context has been established. Same for all other abbreviations. That's just good grammar. You write out the name (or term) in full, first, then after that, its ok to use the abbreviation. This is necessary because abbreviations can stand for so many different things, its entirely dependent on context.

For example, without context, you don't know if BLM stands for the social movement, or the Federal Burea of Land Management. Is RAM a computer term, a male sheep, or a Dodge truck??? Without context, you can't know what the writer intends.

 

[Metal god]

The Bevis case was denied emergency injunctive relief by ACB ( Amy Coney Barrett ) . Some say this ends the lower courts involvement since the seventh circuit denied the En-banc request . Resulting Bevis now being able to file for full cert at SCOTUS . Was this the reason for the denial , who knows but it would allow this case and the Caulkins case which was distributed for conference next month to be combined and be heard by SCOTUS next session . Interestingly enough if they did combine and grant . They would likely be delayed long enough to allow the CA Miller case and a couple others being ready for cert next year as well . In theory we could be looking at a huge combining of cases to be heard at SCOTUS next term

Fingers crossed .

 

[Sharkbite]

In theory we could be looking at a huge combining of cases to be heard at SCOTUS next term

Fingers crossed .

Fingers crossed, as long as the make up of the Court does not change before then.

If the current admin gets to appoint one (or Heaven forbid) two Justices, this could go badly for us.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't know that combing the cases is such a good idea. Depends on specifically how it is done, and what the court is going to look at, as the relevant points.

Always remember that what the court focuses on, is not always what you or I might think are the important parts, and is almost never what the popular press reports it to be.

Recent case in point, the high court did not issue a stay to prevent the implementation of the (latest) Illinois ban.

The press is reporting this lack of action as a de facto admission the ban is Constitutional. It is, in fact, no such thing. It is simply no action, at this time.

And that could be a key matter, "At this time". Generally speaking the court doesn't rule on matters not involved in a case directly before them. IT could well be that the court is taking no action at this time, so that the ban does go into effect, and thereby creating someone(s) who are harmed by it, and so have standing to take the case before the court.

This is something almost never mentioned in the press, and little known by the general public, but in order to have standing to bring suit in the eyes of the court, someone must be harmed or potentially be harmed. "Harm" can be denial of rights, or monetary loss, or even physical harm, but it has to be there.

A law that is never put into effect does not harm anyone. IT may be fought for its potential to harm, but that is different and less "immediate" since the law isn't doing anything when its not being enforced.

This non ruling about the Il ban might just be the courts way of giving the law "enough rope" for it to be hung with, WHEN a case involving it comes before the court.

All just guesswork on my part, but I am hopeful...