It was a big day today for the good guys.  Well, today and yesterday.


We’ll start with the federal cases since that’s where GSL is at.

By the way, a welcome to the DeWitt County Sportsman’s Club for climbing onboard the Illinois Gun Rights Alliance pirate ship.  The DCSC, under the leadership of Ted Riva, has jumped with both feet into this fight and we welcome their activism beyond their range.

We had a status hearing today for the four federal cases in the Southern District before Judge McGlynn.  It was a lot of organizational issues for the case.  Here are the key take-aways:

The cases will be consolidated under Barnett v. Raoul (which is the NSSF/NRA suit).  Why is this significant?  Their lead attorney is Paul Clement, the same fellow who successfully argued the Bruen case last year.  Pity poor Kwame Raoul.  He’s in the deep end of the pool and he doesn’t even know it.

The State of Illinois’ response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is due March 2nd.  That’s next week.

We negotiated, and the judge agreed that each of the plaintiffs will get a response for the State’s response to the preliminary injunction of up to 15 pages each.  These are due March 23rd.  We requested this to respond to what the state alleges are historical analogs and the comprehensive (or not) nature of their illustrative examples.  Ordinarily reply briefs like this are not usually allowed in this federal district court so this is a plus for us.

Oral arguments are set for April 12th, limited to one hour each for our side (15 minutes each) and the State.

It’s worth noting that Judge McGlynn is building a comprehensive record in this case as it will almost assuredly go up on appeal.  The mistakes in the other cases floating around out there, or how they are being argued is done right here.  So these are the cases to watch.

Obviously we’re keep to learn more about Judge McGlynn and his attitudes.  He’s a Trump appointee, and here’s a video of an interview with him before his nomination to the federal court.


This Judge seems quite sharp.  He’s definitely not like the judge in the Naperville case.


Yesterday, word came down from the Illinois Supreme court.  

The IL Supremes consolidated Tom DeVore’s three cases in Effingham County. 

The IL Supremes left Dan Caulkins’ case by itself including his motion for a summary judgement which fast-tracks the case to the Illinois Supreme Court for a quick decision.  According to DeVore, this decision on consolidation was at the behest of the governor, the attorney general and Dan Caulkins.

Frankly, it falls right into what we thought might happen.

Part of this includes DeVore allowing him to add more individual plaintiffs to the case.  For those who are interested, you can probably find details at Mr. DeVore’s website.

Honestly, I’d recommend saving your $200…  but if joining DeVore’s 

Tom DeVore has a video with some details of the order.


8 thoughts on “BIG Litigation Update: Federal cases, State cases…”
  1. According to Center Square, the Macon County case will be heard March 3 by the Illinois Supreme Court. Not much information at this point, so I am not sure what a summary judgement would amount to. Would it grant a permanent injunction against the Ban Law in total, or just a continued temporary restraint until the Federal cases are adjudicated? It is a little confusing to understand the possible outcomes at the state level. I would expect ultimately that a victory in Federal court would supersede (or compliment) what the ISC does, but a Federal ruling might take a long time to work its way through the courts.

    1. I don’t understand it either. I do hear DeVore alk8ng all these things he wants to do for gun owners but his suits only help his clients. And him.

  2. “but his suits only help his clients. And him.”

    No true. The DeVore cases and the Caulkins cases are exactly the same in two ways. One they provide immediate relief for their named plaintiffs through tros. Two they provide permanent relief for all Illinois gun owners if successful at the Illinois Supreme Court.

  3. If I understand what I have read in the Illinois Constitution, the case *should* be pretty close to a slam dunk for us. ISC clearly states the following:
    Article I:
    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.
    The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against
    unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
    No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special
    privileges or immunities, shall be passed.
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
    Notice ‘individual citizen’. That even takes the 2A definition of ‘militia’ even further. That doesn’t say – subject to legislative whim.
    The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State.

    Article XII:
    The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.

    As I said, this should be a slam-dunk for us, but we all know how unpredictable the courts can be, especially on hot button issues. The combination of what the Illinois Constitution, Second Amendment, Heller, McDonald and Bruen, plus recent cases involving individual gun rights, all favor us greatly. But we also saw what one ignorant Federal judge with an agenda did in Naperville, too. My biggest fear is that this thing doesn’t get resolved at the state level, and gun owners get forced into the ‘register your guns or become a felon’ scenario before this thing can work its way through the Federal court system. In that time, many gun dealers will be irreparably harmed.

    1. Ultimately this cannot be settled at the state level. The current cases in state arms are not making a direct right to bear arms argument. Under any scenario where the Illinois Supreme Court finds the statute unconstitutional under the state constitution, new legislation which does exactly the same thing will be introduced and probably passed. For example if the ISC tosses the statute based on equal protection, the bill will be reintroduced without the exempted classes. The only permanent solution is the federal case litigated through the US Supreme Court.

  4. I agree dave DeVore is in it for himself why not sue for everyone not just who ever is willing to pay up looks like pay for play to me DeVore us a peace of shit

    1. That’s why I liked Caulkins approach a little better – he didn’t demand any money at all (I did kick him $50) – and he pretty much took a come one come all approach. I agree that ultimately this will have to be decided at the federal level; I am very concerned about the timetable involved in that. We must have relief well before the timelines established in the ‘law’ for registration, for example.

    2. Still having trouble understanding the animus towards DeVore. 5,000 individuals and ffls paid DeVore to represent them. And as a practical matter, we-those who paid the flat fee-paid to “sue for everyone.” A ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court impacts every citizen in Illinois. The benefit the named plaintiffs received is the tro in effect during the pendency of the litigation. So if either the Caulkins or the DeVore case is successful everyone benefits whether they contributed or not. I for one am not going to be pissed at everyone who benefits but didn’t make any financial contribution.

Comments are closed.