Friday, December 6, 2024

Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Injunction Nears Expiration

AR15-Black White iStock-534364755
FPC Files Opening Brief in Challenge to Maryland “Assault Weapons” Ban IMG iStock-534364755

The stay on the injunction issued by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in Barnett v. Raoul against the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) is due to expire on Sunday night. If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals does not issue another stay, the state will be blocked from enforcing the new law.

PICA is a so-called “assault weapons” and magazine ban. After the law was passed, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Hood’s Guns & More, and Pro Gun and Indoor Range sued the state to block the law’s enforcement. The Plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, but a three-judge panel from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. After the merits of the case were argued in the District Court, the judge issued a summary judgment for the plaintiffs and a permanent injunction but stayed it for 30 days to give the courts time to appeal to the Seventh Circuit and ask them to issue a stay.

After the state appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court reviewed the ruling and said it felt the District Court’s ruling was deficient because it did not follow the guidelines laid out by the courts. The Appeals Court asked the Plaintiffs and defendants to file motions on whether the case should be remanded to the lower Court for a judgment compliant with the law.

The Defendants said that even though the District Court did not fully comply with the law, a remand is unnecessary. It did acknowledge that the Circuit Court does have the right to do so if it decides to remand it. They did ask that the Circuit Court issue an administrative stay if it chose to remand the case back down to the lower Court. The Defendants claimed they believed the plaintiffs would not object to a stay.

“The court has appellate jurisdiction, but the district court did not fully comply with Rules 58 and 65,” the Defense wrote. “Notwithstanding that, there is no need for a remand, as the parties’ rights and obligations are made sufficiently clear by the Court’s opinion and prior orders. If the Court does issue a limited remand, it should either resolve the defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal or enter an administrative stay while the case is remanded.”

The Plaintiffs believe the case should not be remanded to the lower Court but don’t oppose a limited remand back to the District Court. They admit that the District Court decision was deficient because of the lack of explanation of the injunction, but it shouldn’t hold off the Appeals Court‘s action. They claim the District Court’s injunction did have a practical effect of an injunction on the government. The Plaintiffs believe that there is ample appellate jurisdiction.

“Plaintiffs do not oppose a limited remand, so the district court may re-issue judgment in full compliance with Rule 65(d) should this Court prefer that course,” the Plaintiffs wrote. “The Court certainly has authority to order a limited remand for that purpose, and perhaps doing so might narrow the issues on appeal. Plaintiffs accordingly have no objection to whichever way this Court prefers to proceed.”

A stay keeps the status quo as a case works through the legal system. The question is whether the status quo is from after PICA was in effect or before it went into effect. The Circuit Court will have to decide. If the Circuit Court doesn’t remand the case, it will be heard by a three-judge panel. One of the original panel members retired, meaning at least one new judge would hear the case. The Court could also construct an entirely new panel to review the case. Either way, the plaintiffs should have a better chance this time around.

Most experts believe that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will issue a stay on the injunction until it can hear the appeal’s arguments.


About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump



from https://ift.tt/7GJtrei
via IFTTT

No comments:

Post a Comment