Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Afternoon roundup
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
* What this means is that brilliant legal mind Tom DeVore has almost assuredly been aced out. From Illinois Review…
On Tuesday, State Rep. Dan Caulkins, Gov. JB Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul requested that the Illinois Supreme Court consolidate the three cases brought by former Republican AG candidate Thomas DeVore against Pritzker’s Assault Weapons Ban but keep their case out of it. [Yesterday], the Illinois Supreme Court did just that.
Rep. Caulkins’ lawsuit against the Assault Weapons Ban will proceed on its own in Macon County, with the parties having just filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
As Illinois Review previously reported, those early summary judgment motions are being made in a case having no record as the parties have declined to take any discovery.
DeVore’s three cases will proceed in Effingham County before Judge Joshua Morrison. DeVore has served numerous discovery requests on the defendants, which the defendants have declined to answer and have sought an extension of time to June in which to respond.
Regardless of the outcome of the cross-motions for summary judgment in Rep. Caulkins’ case, there is no doubt that the parties will appeal the outcome. In other words, the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately will be the one to decide whether summary judgment is proper at this early stage of the litigation.
As we’ve already discussed, a divided 5th District Appellate court has ruled that one of Tom DeVore’s counts is valid and the rest are not. The one argument the appellate court narrowly upheld was that the Illinois constitution has a right to bear arms. It’s now up to the Illinois Supreme Court to figure out where to go from there.
DeVore wants to subpoena witnesses and conduct discovery, which would hold things up for weeks and even months. Rep. Caulkins has a seasoned local lawyer who probably figured that discovery was not only unnecessary, since the appellate ruling essentially moves the case past the fact phase to the law phase, but also puts his clients at risk of discovery on themselves. In order to establish legal standing, the state would logically require that his clients disclose their names, addresses and make, model and serial numbers of their outlawed weapons. Such disclosure to the government is exactly what they’re fighting against. That DeVore would put his own plaintiffs in such a position is really weird.
Anyway, DeVore had asked that the Supreme Court stay any further rulings on Caulkins’ case while his consolidated cases proceeded, but the Supremes did not comply.
Attorney General Raoul had come to an agreement with Caulkins’ attorney on summary judgement in order to expedite matters. With DeVore stuck in Effingham and still insisting on discovery, Raoul has no incentive to make any such agreement with DeVore.
So, assuming the Macon County judge agrees next week and the Supreme Court takes the appeal, it’ll very likely be Dan Caulkins v. Pritzker at the top court instead of DeVore’s Darren Bailey v. Pritzker.
Heh.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Afternoon roundup
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
DeVore must think whether there is a right to bear arms in the Illinois Constitution is a question of fact lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 3:47 pm
DeVore would stand to gain a huge sum of money (from his clients) if he were to conduct discovery.
I guess this is going to turn out with less grifting than he previously hoped.
Comment by H-W Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 3:51 pm
–Such disclosure to the government is exactly what they’re fighting against.–
Yeah, that jumped out at me in the original linked story too.
Tuesday, Jan 31, 23 @ 1:23 pm:
I hope nobody is missing the at least to me hilarious irony of all these people upset about having to register their guns, now having their names registered with the state and displayed quite publicly in court records.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 3:56 pm
“. In order to establish legal standing, the state would logically require that his clients disclose their names, addresses and make, model and serial numbers of their outlawed weapons.”
This is quite an assumption – first Devore is not ascertaining if plaintiffs own any particular weapon – he is simply asking if they have a FOID. Secondly, one could have standing even if one does not own one of the banned weapons. For instance, if one owns or wishes to purchase a 12 or 15 or 17-round magazine for a pistol, or having a FOID card and not having the option to legally purchase one of the banned weapons would establish standing. This is even listed in the complaint
“Plaintiffs alleged that they “desire to deliver, sell, import, or purchase an assault weapon, assault weapon attachment, .50 caliber rifle, or .50 caliber cartridge and/or manufacture, deliver, sell or purchase large capacity ammunition feeding devices ”
So at best, the state would get a list of FOID card holders – which they already have
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 4:01 pm
So much winning . . .
Comment by JoanP Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 4:06 pm
First place… you get your case heard
Second place… a set of steak knives
Third place… you’re fired
“Always Be Grifting”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 4:08 pm
>>>>DeVore must think
There is a right to keep and bear arms in the Illinois Constitution.
Comment by We've never had one before Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 4:10 pm
===So at best, the state would get===
That assumes the AG wouldn’t ask for the info.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 4:11 pm
That’s some nice irony to send us out on for a Friday. Perfect timing.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Feb 24, 23 @ 4:27 pm