SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

Update to post #240 on Duncan/Rhode/Miller v Bonta cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12462855

Very hopeful for good news tomorrow
Here's video recap of four case "status conference" by judge Benitez on 12/12/22 by CRPA representing Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) and Rhode v Bonta (CA ammunition ban) cases. Also heard were Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) and Fouts v Bonta (CA baton ban).


  • Not a "hearing" but "status conference"
  • Unusual due to four cases presented at the same time (Usually only one case at a time)
  • Judge Benitez wanted the cases to proceed as quickly as possible
  • It is likely judge will find all four cases unconstitutional
On Duncan case:
  • Duncan was filed in 2017 and likely will be appealed again and judge Benitez implied he wants to expedite and finish at the district court level for appeal to the 9th Circuit
  • It's important for the state of CA to know whether laws it passed are constitutional (Judge Benitez already ruled Duncan unconstitutional with judgement in March 2019 and now reconsidering the remanded case post-Bruen ruling)
  • State of CA is coming up with excuses to delay the cases further with historians, more expert witnesses, etc. (As quick appeal to the Supreme Court with current bench make up will result in rulings unfavorable to CA ;))
On Rhode case:
  • Judge Benitez wants to quickly set cases straight
  • Ammunition "ban" is imposed process issue where buyers must jump through hoops like background checks, etc.
  • Buying ammunition is different than buying firearm and should not require background checks because it is so burdensome to the buyer
  • There is no such "history and tradition" of burdening buyers to purchase ammunition

More detailed discussion interview with CRPA president Chuck Michel (Jump to 12:40 minute)


  • Bruen ruling eliminated the two-step approach and now only "text and history" approach is used for Second Amendment cases
  • Means there must be same/similar laws back in history when the Second through Fourteenth Amendments were ratified
  • CA tried to push for historians to expand to "gun related practices" but it was clarified that only laws in place, not practices, are to be considered
  • Historically there has been push for firearms improvement/development, not limitations and restrictions
  • Likely all of the cases will be appealed to the Supreme Court
  • Delay tactics by CA is likely in hopes that Supreme Court bench make up will change
  • Current Supreme Court bench make up will likely hear these cases and rule on them
 
Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12484678

Oregon judge signals more trouble ahead for Measure 114 - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...als-more-trouble-ahead-for-measure-114-n65271
  • Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio who issued a temporary restraining order last Tuesday told both sides of case yesterday Oregon’s ban on “large capacity” magazines and “permit-to-purchase” scheme will remain on hold for now
  • He will issue a formal ruling on a request for an injunction by this Friday, 12/16 stating, "... Any complete bar on the ability to secure a firearm would be unconstitutional ..."
  • He made no formal decision on preliminary injunction against Measure 114’s ban on high-capacity magazines and would issue an opinion by Friday, 12/16
  • There was disagreement on the "in common use" of multi-shot firearms used for self-defense in 1859, a requirement made by Oregon Supreme Court’s protection of the right to bear arms
  • Supreme Court noted in the Caetano case, arms that are in common use today but weren’t around at the time of the Founding are still protected by the text of the Second Amendment
 
Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12491164

Good news!

After issuing a temporary restraining order last Tuesday on Oregon's new "Permit to purchase" of Measure 114, Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio today issued a preliminary injunction against larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban and maintained temporary restraining order on "Permit to purchase".

GOA has secured a preliminary injunction against the Oregon magazine ban in state court! The restraining order on permits to purchase has ALSO been maintained - https://twitter.com/GunFoundation/status/1603519551299358720

Oregon judge issues injunction blocking high-capacity magazine ban - https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12...junction-blocking-high-capacity-magazine-ban/
  • Oregon state circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state’s voter-passed restrictions on firearm sales and magazine capacities from taking effect
  • Judge stated restrictions in Ballot Measure 114 prohibiting the purchase and carry of magazines holding more than 10 rounds “unduly frustrate the right to bear arms” under Oregon’s Constitution
  • Unconvinced by state's testimony judge wrote, “Based upon the preliminary evidence, the result of BM 114 would be a near absolute prohibition on handguns and many other firearms with their magazines”
  • On Tuesday, judge Raschio extended a temporary restraining order blocking the permit requirement from taking effect while state worked on the new system and stated, “I am convinced that there’s irreparable harm to the constitutional right to bear arms under Article 1 Section 27 if I do not”
  • When state tried to argue that high capacity magazines are not an instrumental component of a firearm, judge stated, “The evidence shows the distinction the defendants are trying to draw between firearms and magazines is a fiction ... Firearms do not function without magazines. An analogy would be making a distinction between a car and its engine.” :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
  • Judge Raschio will hold a hearing within 10 days of being notified the permit-to-purchase system is ready to determine if it is constitutional. He scheduled a hearing for Dec. 23 on the background check provisions in Measure 114.
Attorney discuss update in the measure 114 lawsuits to halt the enforcement of the state permit and magazine ban scheme - https://rumble.com/v20vzr7-large-capacity-magazine-ban-found-unconstitutional-and-halted.html

BTW, overview of Measure 114 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12480318
  • Three federal lawsuits were filed (OFF v Brown / Fitz v Rosenblum / Eyre v Rosenblum ) and a federal judge paused implementation of new "permit to purchase" scheme until state had a working system implemented
  • Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) last Tuesday for Arnold v Brown against implementation of new "permit to purchase"
  • When state requested Oregon Supreme Court reverse the county court's TRO, Oregon Supreme Court denied the request
  • Preliminary injunction hearing was held today (12/15) and TRO on "permit to purchase" was extended until state has a new system in place (Hearing will be held within 10 days of notification of new system being in place) and granted preliminary injunction on magazine ban
 
Last edited:
Update to post #240 Miller v Bonta - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12462855

Judge Benitez’s Latest Order in Miller v. Bonta Sets the Stage for Taking Down California’s Assault Weapons Ban - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/j...-taking-down-californias-assault-weapons-ban/
  • 2022-12-12: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger T. Benitez: Status Conference held on 12/12/2022. The state defendants shall create, and the plaintiffs shall meet and confer regarding, a survey or spreadsheet of relevant statutes, laws, or regulations in chronological order. The listing shall begin at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment and continue through twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment. For each cited statute/law/regulation, the survey shall provide: (a) the date of enactment; (b) the enacting state, territory, or locality; (c) a description of what was restricted (e.g., dirks, daggers, metal knuckles, storage of gunpowder or cartridges, or use regulations); (d) what it was that the law or regulation restricted; (e) what type of weapon was being restricted (e.g., knife, Bowie Knife, stiletto, metal knuckles, pistols, rifles); (f) if and when the law was repealed and whether it was replaced; (g) whether the regulation was reviewed by a court and the outcome of the courts review (with case citation). Defendants may create a second survey covering a time period following that of the first list. If opposing parties cannot agree on the inclusion of a particular entry on the survey, the disagreement shall be indicated and described on a separate list. The survey list shall be filed within 30 days. Parties may file a brief up to 25 pages within 30 days thereafter focusing on relevant analogs. Parties may file a responsive brief within 10 days thereafter. Parties shall agree within 20 days on deposing Mr. Roth and Mr. Cramer at an agreed place and time.
  • The Court is laser-focused on the state of the law in 1791, but will also at least listen to arguments about what the state of the law was between then and shortly after 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified). But while he’ll also let California file whatever they want regarding subsequent developments in the law, it’s pretty clear that Judge Benitez isn’t interested in that. For a very good analysis of why the only relevant consideration is what the law was in 1791, see this essay by Second Amendment guru Stephen Halbrook, as well as Justice Barrett’s concurrence in Bruen (pp.82-83 of the opinion).
  • Benitez is making the parties present it as a joint report. To me, that’s clearly directed to minimizing the possibility of evidentiary objections on appeal.
  • The stuff he’s asking for has been exhaustively documented already (see the Bruen opinion on this). I think Benitez knows it’s not going to contain much if anything that hasn’t been covered already.
  • I’m assuming that Roth and Cramer are California’s proposed new “expert witnesses,” and he’s allowing their depositions to perpetuate their testimony. In light of his earlier rulings, I suspect he’ll stick to his guns that California doesn’t get a “do-over,” but by doing this he can probably make some additional findings (e.g., “I’ve already ruled the state doesn’t get a do-over, but even if I reopened evidence and considered this proffered new evidence, it wouldn’t change my previous findings”). Again, I see it as Benitez thinking three moves ahead to make his decision bulletproof.
  • This probably pushes any decision in this case 90 days or so. While the wheels of justice do grind slowly, in this case I foresee them crushing the state of California’s gun control ambitions.
 
Update to post #251 and post #254.

Attorney discuss Miller/Duncan/Rhode v Bonta cases - https://rumble.com/v21d605-order-to...ault-weapon-ban-and-magazine-ban-delayed.html
  • CA is requesting additional time to mid 2023 to assemble historians to look at "relevant history and tradition" as they may be busy with commitments of teaching requirements
  • CA wants "specific" historians/professors < Meaning anti-gun historians and professors > to review "relevant history and tradition" to come up with supporting evidence to back CA's ban
  • As of now, CA has not been able to provide any historical evidence
  • Judge Benitez gave CA 30 days to put together a spreadsheet of all enacted laws and regulations that support CA's ban up to 1888 which is 20 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment
  • But judge Benitez will actually consider history around 1791
  • Judge Benitez maybe allowing additional time of up to 70 days (30 days for spreadsheet, 30 days for plaintiff response and 10 more days for reply) to mitigate the argument CA could make on appeal to 9th Circuit that judge Benitez didn't allow sufficient time for expert witnesses and caused procedural error.
 
Update to post #248 regarding Eyre v Rosenblum (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12486119

Operation Blazing Sword – Pink Pistols announce they will be filing an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the plaintiffs suing to overturn [Measure 114] in the Eyre v. Rosenblum suit - https://www.blazingsword.org/press-release-statement-on-oregon-measure-114/

... recently-passed Oregon Ballot Measure 114 imposes a burdensome “permit to purchase” scheme upon all citizens, including marginalized and at-risk groups such as queer people ... Measure 114 fails to clearly define what does and does not disqualify applicants. Moreover, Measure 114 applies to all firearms, not just handguns

... gun rights are queer rights because lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms defend queer lives, and that self-defense is a human right. Therefore, any measure which inhibits, delays, or prevents the ability of queer people to defend themselves is inherently homophobic and transphobic, and violates both civil and human rights.

... Measure 114 is a profoundly discriminatory law that ultimately will not pass muster with the courts, especially in light of the recent NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling.​
 
Update to post #251 and post #254.

Attorney discuss Miller/Duncan/Rhode v Bonta cases - https://rumble.com/v21d605-order-to...ault-weapon-ban-and-magazine-ban-delayed.html
  • CA is requesting additional time to mid 2023 to assemble historians to look at "relevant history and tradition" as they may be busy with commitments of teaching requirements
  • CA wants "specific" historians/professors < Meaning anti-gun historians and professors > to review "relevant history and tradition" to come up with supporting evidence to back CA's ban
  • As of now, CA has not been able to provide any historical evidence
  • Judge Benitez gave CA 30 days to put together a spreadsheet of all enacted laws and regulations that support CA's ban up to 1888 which is 20 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment
  • But judge Benitez will actually consider history around 1791
  • Judge Benitez maybe allowing additional time of up to 70 days (30 days for spreadsheet, 30 days for plaintiff response and 10 more days for reply) to mitigate the argument CA could make on appeal to 9th Circuit that judge Benitez didn't allow sufficient time for expert witnesses and caused procedural error.
I doubt it's going to take the plaintiffs 30-40 days to respond to CA's spreadsheet on historical bans and regulations, so we're looking at probably mid February before a ruling.
 
Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12492400


Judge Raschio ... scheduled a hearing for Dec. 23 on the background check provisions in Measure 114

Hearing was held on Friday and Harney County circuit court judge Raschio will decide by 1/3/23 whether to keep in place or lift his order blocking background check provision of Measure 114.

An Oregon judge will decide by Jan. 3 whether to keep in place or lift his order blocking part of a new, voter-approved gun safety measure requiring a completed criminal background check before a gun can be sold or transferred - https://www.kgw.com/article/news/po...8-6ebd-4c48-8f5d-358670e22087?ref=exit-recirc
  • Judge Raschio paused all parts of Measure 114 earlier this month
  • OR will be ready to support a permit to purchase program in March, 2023
  • Hearing on Friday focused mainly on the background check provision
  • Under federal law, firearms dealers can sell guns without a completed background check if the check takes longer than three business days and Measure 114 provision would end that practice
  • OR assistant AG urged judge to allow the completed background check requirement to take effect and argued it will save lives, is constitutional and wasn’t directly challenged by the plaintiffs
  • GOA attorney argued the federal law ensures a gun buyer isn’t waiting indefinitely for their background check to be completed and Oregonians under Measure 114 will have no guarantee that their background checks will be processed in a timely manner ... “This is infringement because ... they have the ability to slow-walk background checks or to not do them whatsoever”
  • Judge Raschio will decide by 1/3/23 whether to keep in place or lift his order blocking background check provision of Measure 114
 
Update to Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12500035

... judge Raschio will decide by 1/3/23 whether to keep in place or lift his order blocking background check provision of Measure 114
Oregon judge delivers another legal blow against anti-gun Measure 114 - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...egal-blow-against-anti-gun-measure-114-n65809
  • Measure 114 provisions have yet to be enforced in the state of Oregon due to a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
  • On 1/3/23, judge Raschio once again sided with plaintiffs and told OR AG lawyers the portion of the law dealing with background checks on retail firearm sales will also remain on hold, at least for now
  • Judge Raschio would reconsider severing the background check provision of the law from the rest of the measure only if the permit-to-purchase element was ultimately found to be unconstitutional
  • Judge Raschio stressed that he has not made a final determination on the constitutionality of any of Measure 114′s provisions
  • Due to Measure 114, gun sales exploded with backlog that grew to more than 38,000 background checks and many of the checks weren’t being completed within 72 hours
  • Some gun stores in Oregon have decided to proceed with sales after 72 hours have passed, as they’re allowed to do under federal law, while other FFL’s have taken the position of not releasing any firearms until after the checks have been completed
 
A FPC attorney discuss updates to Measure 114 lawsuits - https://rumble.com/v24edut-supreme-...e-capacity-magazine-ban-and-purchase-per.html
  • In Arnold v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase), larger than 10 round capacity magazine ban is blocked after preliminary injunction was issued by Harney County circuit court judge Raschio
  • Judge Raschio also issued a temporary restraining order to block background check scheme while the new permit to purchase scheme is on hold
  • In OFF v Brown (OR magazine ban/permit to purchase), OR told the federal judge to postpone the enforcement of Measure 114 until at least 3/8/23 while admitting they have no way of implementing new permit to purchase scheme
  • Because OR made the concession, the federal judge granted the postponement of Measure 114 but expressed her opinion that plaintiff's constitutional challenge has no merit for background checks and believes permit to purchase and background checks schemes are constitutional under Bruen decision but she won't be making that determination at the present
 
Two lawsuits were filed after Illinois governor signs new "assault weapon" and magazine ban into law - https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/2-lawsuits-filed-against-illinois-assault-weapons-ban
  • New law bans sale of assault weapons, purchase of magazines larger than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 for handguns
  • New law also bans rapid-fire devices called "switches" which turn firearms into fully automatic weapons

Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker (IL AW/Magazine ban) - https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/1...sault-weapons-ban-plaintiffs-effingham-devore
  • Judge Joshua Morrison on Friday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, temporarily preventing any administrative agency or law enforcement agency from enforcing the law - but only against those who brought the suit
  • A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for February 1st
  • Tom DeVore filed the lawsuit in the 4th Judicial Circuit Court on behalf of 865 gun owners and Accuracy Firearms LLC in Effingham claimed the law violates the Illinois Constitution
  • Emergency hearing was held on Wednesday requesting for a restraining order
  • The lawsuit focused on process and the Illinois Constitution, not the Second Amendment
  • The lawsuit argued the law infringes on the Illinois Constitution’s Article I, Section 2, which says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without equal protections of the laws.” It also claims the law violates the due process clause — and other constitutional grounds about the process in which the measure was passed

Harrel v Raoul (IL AW/Magazine ban) - https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...d_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
  • Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, C4 Gun Store LLC, Marengo Guns, Inc. and a private citizen, Dane Harrel are plaintiffs
  • Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly, and other officials in their official capacities are defendants
  • Lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

And more lawsuits are forthcoming.
 
Last edited:
Judge Joshua Morrison on Friday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, temporarily preventing any administrative agency or law enforcement agency from enforcing the law - but only against those who brought the suit

I don't understand the logic behind this sort of ruling.

The judge has created an 'elite' group of citizens, one that is immune to rules for the remainder of the population. One would think that action, in itself, would be unconstitutional.
 
Another lawsuit filed against NY assault weapons ban.

Lane v. James (NY AW ban) - SAF, FPC File a Lawsuit Challenging New York’s "Assault Weapons" Ban - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/saf-fpc-file-a-lawsuit-challenging-new-yorks-assault-weapons-ban/
  • A federal lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition has been filed in District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of NY residents J. Mark Lane of Larchmont and James Sears of Irving
  • SAF/FPC stated, “Both Sears and Lane are law-abiding New York residents who wish to own modern semiautomatic sport-utility rifles such as the AR-15, for lawful purposes including target shooting and home defense. Such rifles are in common use across the country, yet in the Empire State, citizens face the threat of arrest, confiscation, prosecution, fined and imprisonment for lawfully using such rifles”
  • The lawsuit alleges when the Second Circuit previously upheld NY’s semi-auto ban in 2015, the court used the two-step test that has been eliminated by the US Supreme Court in Bruen decision and the lawsuit will allow the Second Circuit to correct the situation.
  • Plaintiffs are asking for a permanent injunction on the enforcement of the New York ban
 
Graham v. Jennings (DE magazine ban)

Delaware faces federal lawsuit over large capacity magazine ban - https://justthenews.com/nation/stat...aces-lawsuit-over-large-capacity-magazine-ban
  • Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of Christopher Graham and Owen Stevens
  • Plaintiffs are requesting preliminary and permanent injunctions
  • New law bans larger than 17 round capacity magazines
  • Plaintiffs lawyer stated, "There is no historical tradition of this sort of firearm regulation in the United States."

Gray v Jennings (DE AW ban)

FPC, SAF Sue Delaware, Challenging the State’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban - https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fpc-saf-sue-delaware-challenging-the-states-assault-weapons-ban/
 
Last edited:
Update to post #256 Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) and Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12495405

  • Judge Benitez gave CA 30 days to put together a spreadsheet of all enacted laws and regulations that support CA's ban up to 1888 which is 20 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment
  • But judge Benitez will actually consider history around 1791
  • Judge Benitez maybe allowing additional time of up to 70 days (30 days for spreadsheet, 30 days for plaintiff response and 10 more days for reply) to mitigate the argument CA could make on appeal to 9th Circuit that judge Benitez didn't allow sufficient time for expert witnesses and caused procedural error.
Here's the spreadsheet CA wanted to present for "historical evidence" of AW and magazine ban with response from the plaintiffs - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...re-Defendants-Survey-of-Relevant-Statutes.pdf

As plaintiffs response indicated on the far right column of spreadsheet, only AW/magazine ban in the colonial USA is relevant and bans/prohibition/restrictions applied to slaves/carrying became irrelevant with the 14th Amendment and Bruen ruling.

So the spreadsheet actually supports judge Benitez's rulings that there is no historical tradition for AW/magazine ban and forthcoming unconstitutional rulings for both cases after post Bruen reconsideration may set a precedent for other AW/magazine ban cases. :):thumbup:
  • Items #1 through #4 applied to British subjects
  • Item #5 is prohibition of arms possessed by slave made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment
  • Items #6 and #8 are ban of carrying certain arms made irrelevant by Bruen ruling
  • Items #7 and #9 are English laws that allowed "Protestants" to have arms for defense with no objection from the plaintiffs
  • Item #10 is irrelevant as it prohibits unintended/unattended discharge of firearm for trapping animal, not for self defense of human
  • Item #11 is ban to prevent fire/explosion in one city, not the state and insufficient to consider for "historical tradition"
  • Item #12 is ban of very large quantity of gunpowder (black powder which is "explosive" and not smokeless powder which "burns") to prevent fire/explosion and irrelevant to AW/magazine ban
  • Items #13, #14, #19, #20, #23 is ban of carrying certain arms made irrelevant by Bruen ruling
  • Items after #14 are beyond 1791 when Bill of Rights was ratified by which judge Benitez will consider for the case ruling
  • Items #15-#18, #21, #22 are prohibition of carry of arms by "negro or mulatto" made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment
  • Items #24 through #190 are more of carry ban, possession/transfer/manufacture ban for negro or mulatto and regulation of gunpowder to prevent fire/explosion
  • Items after #191 are beyond 1888 stipulated by judge Benitez as 20 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment
 
Update to post #256 Miller v Bonta (CA AW ban) and Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12495405


Here's the spreadsheet CA wanted to present for "historical evidence" of AW and magazine ban with response from the plaintiffs - https://michellawyers.com/wp-conten...re-Defendants-Survey-of-Relevant-Statutes.pdf

As plaintiffs response indicated on the far right column of spreadsheet, only AW/magazine ban in the colonial USA is relevant and bans/prohibition/restrictions applied to slaves/carrying became irrelevant with the 14th Amendment and Bruen ruling.

So the spreadsheet actually supports judge Benitez's rulings that there is no historical tradition for AW/magazine ban and forthcoming unconstitutional rulings for both cases after post Bruen reconsideration may set a precedent for other AW/magazine ban cases. :):thumbup:
  • Items #1 through #4 applied to British subjects
  • Item #5 is prohibition of arms possessed by slave made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment
  • Items #6 and #8 are ban of carrying certain arms made irrelevant by Bruen ruling
  • Items #7 and #9 are English laws that allowed "Protestants" to have arms for defense with no objection from the plaintiffs
  • Item #10 is irrelevant as it prohibits unintended/unattended discharge of firearm for trapping animal, not for self defense of human
  • Item #11 is ban to prevent fire/explosion in one city, not the state and insufficient to consider for "historical tradition"
  • Item #12 is ban of very large quantity of gunpowder (black powder which is "explosive" and not smokeless powder which "burns") to prevent fire/explosion and irrelevant to AW/magazine ban
  • Items #13, #14, #19, #20, #23 is ban of carrying certain arms made irrelevant by Bruen ruling
  • Items after #14 are beyond 1791 when Bill of Rights was ratified by which judge Benitez will consider for the case ruling
  • Items #15-#18, #21, #22 are prohibition of carry of arms by "negro or mulatto" made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment
  • Items #24 through #190 are more of carry ban, possession/transfer/manufacture ban for negro or mulatto and regulation of gunpowder to prevent fire/explosion
  • Items after #191 are beyond 1888 stipulated by judge Benitez as 20 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment

Thanks for posting that.

I would also like to point out #33 as one of the few that the plaintiff's didn't object to being included. It's a Georgia law from 1837 that "banned selling or carrying "bowie" knives, pistols, swords, sword canes, and spears" that was found to be unconstitutional in Nunn v. State of GA.
 
I don't understand the logic behind this sort of ruling.

The judge has created an 'elite' group of citizens, one that is immune to rules for the remainder of the population. One would think that action, in itself, would be unconstitutional.

Not an "elite group" as this is, in many ways, similar to a class action lawsuit and may, in fact, be one. As a result, only those people that are part of that lawsuit will be the ones to benefit by this TRO. This lawsuit in NOT about the 2nd Amendment - YET. It is about the methods that the GA passed the legislation and that, in part, they failed to follow proper procedure. IIRC, there is a Constitutional aspect in this lawsuit, something about "taking without compensation" in how it affects both the businesses and the property of the individuals.
I strongly urge those interested to go to Illinois Carry ( https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/ ) as the situation is being closely monitored there.
 
Update to IL AW/magazine ban, "Protect Illinois Communities Act" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12527049
Two lawsuits were filed after Illinois governor signs new "assault weapon" and magazine ban into law ... Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker (IL AW/Magazine ban) ... Harrel v Raoul (IL AW/Magazine ban)

And more lawsuits are forthcoming.
Kenneally v. Raoul (IL AW/Magazine ban) - McHenry County challenge to Illinois law transferred to federal court - https://abc7chicago.com/il-assault-weapons-ban-2023-illinois-banning-lawsuit/12750214/
  • McHenry County State's Attorney Patrick Kenneally filed the challenge to the Illinois assault weapons ban
  • Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul made the request to remove the case from state court and send it to federal court
  • After Monday's hearing, challenge to the Illinois assault weapons ban by McHenry County has been transferred up to federal court
  • Kenneally is asking for an emergency temporary restraining order blocking the law from taking effect

Barnett v. Raoul (IL AW/Magazine ban) - https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-challenges-illinois-unconstitutional-gun-and-magazine-ban/
  • Plaintiffs are Caleb Barnett, Brian Norman, Hood's Guns & More, Pro Gun and Indoor Range and National Sports Shooting Foundation
  • AR-15 Modern Sporting Rifle, produced by hundreds of firearm manufacturers, has become by far the most popular-selling semiautomatic centerfire rifle sold in American today
  • Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
  • Two 2A lawyers who helped win a landmark Bruen case are now challenging the constitutionality of Illinois' assault weapons ban - with help from the National Rifle Association - https://abc7chicago.com/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-weapon-rifle/12734366/
    • Paul Clement and Erin Murphy began their own firm
    • Although NRA is not listed as a plaintiff, it joined NSSF to bring forth the suit, similar to what NRA did for Bruen case

Update to Harrel v Raoul (IL AW/Magazine ban) Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...74668012/Harrel_v_Raoul_16_MPI.pdf?1674668012
 
Last edited:
Update to Accuracy Firearms v Pritzker (IL AW/Magazine ban - State case) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-11#post-12527049

  • Tom DeVore filed the lawsuit in the 4th Judicial Circuit Court on behalf of 865 gun owners and Accuracy Firearms LLC in Effingham county
  • Judge Joshua Morrison on Friday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, temporarily preventing any administrative agency or law enforcement agency from enforcing the law - but only against those who brought the suit
Illinois appellate court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit over the state’s assault weapons ban, finding that a temporary restraining order keeping the [Protect Illinois Communities Act] bill from going into effect can stand - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...inois-assault-weapons-ban-on-hold/ar-AA16XBGj
"... we conclude that the circuit court erred when it found that a fair question existed as to whether plaintiffs would be entitled to the relief sought under counts I, II, and III, if the evidence presented at a trial were sufficient to sustain the party’s factual allegations. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Effingham County as to those counts. However, for the reasons set forth above, we affirm the TRO issued for count IV. Mandate to issue instanter [Immediately]."​
  • The appellate court found in favor of the plaintiffs on Count IV of their lawsuit that the [Protect Illinois Communities Act] bill violated the equal protection clause in the state and US Constitution. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ arguments met the requirement of “a likelihood of success on the merits,” and allowed the TRO to stand for now.
  • The Fifth District appellate court voted 2-to-1 to extend the TRO statewide.
  • Attorney General's office intends to appeal the ruling to the state's Supreme Court
 
Back
Top