(650 words)

When I read the filings of the plaintiffs (good guys), it is almost always respectful of the state. They might discuss the challenged statute in negative terms, but there was always a certain level of respect for the state and the courts.

That seems to be changing.

As is attributed to the American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

In drafting the so called “Protect Illinois Communities Act”, the proponents of same were in such a hurry to get the statue, in fact any such statute, on the books, that they utterly ignored the Illinois Constitution’s three reading rule requirement, a requirement designed to slow the passage of legislation, to improve its quality, fell into a trap that had they spent a week or two researching why prior firearms laws have been declared unconstitutional, might have avoided this issue. Instead, like the Light Brigade, they rode headlong into the Valley of Death for statutes, well guarded by Haynes and its 5th Amendment
No. 165: Barnett v. Raoul, No. 3:23-cv-00209 (S.D. Ill.)

Ok, that was the gantlet across the face, not to the ground. That should leave marks.

Similarly, the Defendant was so desperate to respond to the Fifth Amendment issue, that it literally argued a summary judgment motion without a single document, affidavit or attachment attached.

The reply then continues by pointing out that PICA requires people to register their “naughty guns”. The Illinois State Police webpage tells the subjects of Illinois that they will be arrested and charged if they don’t register their “naughty guns”.

As stated by the Seventh Circuit of the original National Firearms Act, “Registration would be an admission that another section or other sections of the Act had been violated and might support a conviction by a court.” Dugan v. United States, 341 F. 2d 85, 86 – Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1965. Likewise, the Seventh Circuit also stated, “we do not think that the fact that there might be cases where registration would not result in incrimination by the registrant is any answer to the contention that one who is required to register might thereby incriminate himself.Id.

This is expert level trolling. This case was just vacated and remanded to the district court by the Seventh Circuit court.

The “same” Seventh Circuit court, in November, had said that it wasn’t weapons in common use that controlled, instead it was if the state or the court decided that something was more suited to the military.

They also claim that Bruen, and Heller applied circular logic. All of this because of a throw-away line in dicta in Heller which sought to protect the NFA.

Just like under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required registration within 60 days of the act (See Ex. A, p. 2), all persons in Illinois who possessed PICA regulated firearms were supposed to register their firearms, .50 BMG ammunition and “accessories” on of before December 31, 2023. See Ex, B, page 2, citing 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(d), see also Ex C, p. 1) Possession of these PICA regulated items after December 31, 2023, is, drum roll, a crime. Ex C, p 2. Do not take Plaintiffs’ or their attorney’s word for it, look at what Defendant Kelly himself says, that is posted on his own website!
To say that the risks of self incrimination by registration at this point is anything but real, is delusional at best. Defendant himself is posting on his own official website warnings of potential arrest and prosecution that his lawyers are trying to suggest are make believe.
Despite these facts, the arguments of Defendant is that the right against self incrimination is not violated, for three specific reasons. None of which hold any water, and all of which border on the legally and factually frivolous.

This was a short filing. Only eleven pages or so.

Washington Gun Law and Mark Smith are both saying that the petitions for cert coming from the Fourth, Second(?) and Seventh Circuits are full of trolling.

Spread the love

By awa

4 thoughts on “A change in tone?”
  1. It is hard to remain respectful of those who continually demonstrate they deserve none, even when they are in a position of power.

  2. I thought I was reading an excerpt of a legal document until I got to “. . . drum roll . . .”

    Wait! I was!

    Goes to show lawyers may indeed be human, too. Sometimes. 🙂

  3. You don’t need to file rational, legible, understandable motions following established precedent when you know you have a better than 90% chance of your motion being heard by a judge who holds the same beliefs and agendas that you hold. The left just keeps throwing crap against the wall knowing eventually it will stick because
    eventually it gets heard…and approved….by a sympathetic leftist judge.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.