IL: Kenneally v. Raoul (Assault Wpn & Mag Ban) - Fed Judge NOT happy

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    No idea where this case fits in among all the **** flying around Illinois’ anti-constitutional efforts, but somebody is in line for a butt-whoopin’. Emphasis added.

    MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: The defendants removed this case, then moved for judgment on the pleadings based on lack of standing. Dkt. 9. They have now filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion for judgment on the pleadings based on their conclusion that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over this case, the case they removed to federal court. Dkt. 12. So what is it? Do the defendants believe this Court has jurisdiction (which is the only basis to remove it here) or do the defendants believe this Court lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacks standing? Pick one and be prepared to tell the Court why. And if the answer is the Court lacks jurisdiction, be prepared to tell the Court why the case was removed to this Court. Please keep Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in mind during this process. Perhaps the judicial resources already expended could have been avoided had the defendants complied with this Court's standing order on Removed Cases, specifically the unheeded requirement that in "any action removed to this Court, within 7 business days, defense counsel must also file a certification that they have read this standing order." The parties are directed to review the standing order if they have not already done so, including the warnings about summary remands, awards of costs, and sanctions for the unnecessary use of the Court's time to be paid personally by counsel. A status hearing is set for 4/03/2023 at 11:00 AM. Counsel shall appear in person. (yxp, ) (Entered: 03/17/2023)

     

    Kurr

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 18, 2011
    1,234
    113
    Jefferson County
    Is there a cliffs notes version for the legally impaired?
    That's the dumbest argument i've ever heard and I am wondering how you passed the BAR. I am gonna sit you down in a chair, and your gonna try and explain this nonsense and if I think yer pullin some crap here, I am going to charge you personally for all this.
     

    bobzilla

    Mod in training (in my own mind)
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 1, 2010
    8,944
    113
    Brownswhitanon.
    That's the dumbest argument i've ever heard and I am wondering how you passed the BAR. I am gonna sit you down in a chair, and your gonna try and explain this nonsense and if I think yer pullin some crap here, I am going to charge you personally for all this.
    I’m a stupid parts *****. The only bar I passed is off of Zionsville road.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    Tryin'

    Victimized
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Nov 18, 2009
    1,739
    113
    Hamilton County
    That's the dumbest argument i've ever heard and I am wondering how you passed the BAR. I am gonna sit you down in a chair, and your gonna try and explain this nonsense and if I think yer pullin some crap here, I am going to charge you personally for all this.
    I read this in a specific voice. We have a judge that would have said it just like that. :):
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    That's the dumbest argument i've ever heard and I am wondering how you passed the BAR. I am gonna sit you down in a chair, and your gonna try and explain this nonsense and if I think yer pullin some crap here, I am going to charge you personally for all this.
    this is certainly the spirit of the order, lol

    The states attorney of the county of McHenry Illinois sued the state Attorney General in the state governor over the assault weapons/magazine ban law in state court.

    At end of January the state Attorney General asked to have the case moved from state court to federal court, which the plaintiffs did not oppose, and so it went.

    Now less than two months later the state Attorney General wants to move the case back to state court, claiming that the county level states attorney does not have standing to sue, and therefore the federal court does not have jurisdiction.

    The judge in the federal court is severely annoyed that the state Attorney General appears to be wasting the judge‘s time, and is reminding the Attorney General that unless he has a really good reason that he went through all this, he can be charged personally for the court costs.

    And the Attorney General has to come explain in person to the judge.
     

    carry205

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 6, 2017
    96
    33
    Florissant
    this is certainly the spirit of the order, lol

    The states attorney of the county of McHenry Illinois sued the state Attorney General in the state governor over the assault weapons/magazine ban law in state court.

    At end of January the state Attorney General asked to have the case moved from state court to federal court, which the plaintiffs did not oppose, and so it went.

    Now less than two months later the state Attorney General wants to move the case back to state court, claiming that the county level states attorney does not have standing to sue, and therefore the federal court does not have jurisdiction.

    The judge in the federal court is severely annoyed that the state Attorney General appears to be wasting the judge‘s time, and is reminding the Attorney General that unless he has a really good reason that he went through all this, he can be charged personally for the court costs.

    And the Attorney General has to come explain in person to the judge.
    Judge shopping…one of the effing Democrats favorite tools. Except, this time, they’ve been called out into the street. These p.o.s Illinois democrats take their schooling from New York democrats. We shouldn’t expect anything different.
     

    BiscuitsandGravy

    Future 'shootered'
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Nov 8, 2016
    3,900
    113
    At the Ranch.
    Call the Judge to straighten out these bums.... she'll open a big 'ol can of whoopass...

    Bell-Sabrina-mug.jpg
     

    John Trap

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 6, 2022
    118
    28
    Chicagoland
    New developments posted to another thread. Big thanks to mom45, for her help with this.

     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    My take on it is the Federal District Court's removal of the case from the state court of appeals to the Federal District Court is a "done deal". The "come and explain it to me" order is for the spanking to be delivered in attempting to get the case remanded back into the state courts. I strongly suspect Pritzker and his State Att'y Gen'l didn't like the judge they drew and were trying to get out from under it. Then someone reminded them about some 7th Circuit case precedents regarding their strategy. OOPS!

    Methinks, Pritzker, et alia, are in trouble. Not the least of which are SCOTUS Heller and Bruen decisions, with their majority opinions and dicta applicable to similar 2nd Amendment cases.
     
    Top Bottom