Goodbye, Illinois; Hello, South Carolina!

Manticore Arms is relocating from Illinois to South Carolina. Currently located in Elburn, a village in Kane County just west of Chicago, they will be moving to North Charleston, South Carolina.

From a popup on their website:

Manticore Arms is MOVING!

We are Relocating to 7300 Peppermill Parkway, North Charleston, SC 29418. All orders placed after Thursday October 12th will be packed and shipped after we resume operations in our new location. We estimate shipping to resume Tuesday, October 24th. ORDERS PLACED BETWEEN THESE DATES WILL NOT SHIP UNTIL AT LEAST OCTOBER 24TH.

Manticore is a combination design firm and OEM manufacturer. They manufacture after-market parts for a number of firearms as well as providing design work for other firearm companies.

Their email announcing the move says they are moving to “much more gun friendly state!”. I would agree.

It also looks like the new building will also be larger as well as solely dedicated to Manticore Arms.

Here is their old location in Elburn where the building was shared with a number of other companies.

I hope the move goes smoothly for them and welcome to the Carolinas.

Disappointing

The US Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction against the new Illinois AWB and magazine ban while the cases make their way through the courts.

NAT. ASSN. FOR GUN RIGHTS, ET AL. V. NAPERVILLE, IL., ET AL.
The application for a writ of injunction pending appeal
presented to Justice Barrett and by her referred to the Court is
denied.

While Judge Stephen McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois had issued a preliminary injunction, the state of Illinois immediately appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a stay of his injunction. Normally, the judge who had issued the injunction is given the opportunity to study whether a stay is warranted when the losing party appeals. This was not done in this case as noted by attorneys for the plaintiffs in their responses opposing the motion to stay. Unfortunately, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit did grant their stay meaning the law remains in effect. His order was then confirmed by a panel of three judges (including himself) from the 7th Circuit.

In the NAGR case filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Virginia Kendall had denied their request for a preliminary motion and their request for a motion to stay while they appealed. Attorneys for NAGR had appealed and the plaintiffs in the other cases from the Southern District had filed amicus briefs in support of their appeal.

I am thinking that the Supreme Court did not want to intervene until such time as decisions were final in the lower courts and the cases had been fully briefed and argued. In the meantime, the plaintiffs in the cases from the Southern District where an injunction had been issued could request an en banc hearing of the stay. According to the Washington Post, hearings are scheduled for next month on these cases.

Barnett V. Raoul – Hearing On Challenge To Illinois Gun Ban

Barnett v. Raoul is the consolidated case which challenges the Illinois AWB and magazine ban. It is being heard before Judge Stephen McGlynn in US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. A hearing was held today in East St. Louis, Il.

Bishop On Air live tweeted the arguments in the case which is embedded below. He did a great job of capturing the essence of the arguments. I used Thread Reader to pull them all together.

After the oral arguments ended, plaintiffs said they were confident on obtaining a preliminary injunction against the law. From my reading of Judge McGlynn’s questions, I think they very well get their injunction.

You can see more comments from the plaintiffs’ attorneys along with my friend Todd Vandermyde who served as a consultant in the case in the video below.

Legal Gamesmanship In Illinois AWB Cases

While I was in Las Vegas at the SHOT Show, I listened to Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation discuss some of their 43 pending cases. He went into particular detail about the SAF and co-plaintiffs’ challenge to the recently passed assault weapon (sic) and magazine bans in Illinois. What was particularly interesting was the decision on which district of Illinois to file the case, Harrel et al v. Raoul et al, and the goal of being the first case filed challenging the new law. Alan said the Southern District of Illinois tended to be better which is why it was filed there. He also noted that if, as he expected, the cases would end up being consolidated the lead case would be Harrel v. Raoul as it was the lowest numbered case. Finally, he said that by the luck of the draw that the judge assigned to the case, Judge Stephen McGlynn, was appointed to the court by President Trump.

Since Harrel was filed on January 17th, two other cases were filed challenging the new Illinois ban. Furthermore, another case was moved from state court to Federal court at the request of the State of Illinois.

Barnett et al v. Raoul et al was filed on January 24th. The lead counsel is Paul Clement and the plaintiffs include the National Shooting Sports Foundation. This case is also being financially supported by the NRA according a post on ILA’s website. Filed the same day was Federal Firearm Licensees of Illinois et al v. Pritzker et al. The lead attorney in this case is California gun rights attorney Chuck Michel. Plaintiffs include GOA, Guns Save Lives, and Gun Owners Foundation as well as other individual and business plaintiffs.

Langley et al v. Kelly et al was originally filed in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Crawford County, Illinois. Kelly, the Director of the Illinois State Police, moved to have the case transferred from state court to the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. This removal was granted on January 23rd. Note however, that it has a higher case number than Harrel. This case as well as Barnett and FFL-IL were all originally assigned to Senior Judge J. Phil Gilbert who subsequently recused himself. Langley and FFL-IL has now been reassigned to Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel. She was appointed to the bench by President Obama. The Barnett case has, for the time being, been referred to a magistrate judge.

Under Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the court can consolidate the cases if they involve a common question of law or fact. Given all four cases are challenging the same law, I think there would be grounds to do so.

Here is where it gets interesting and you start to see the legal gamesmanship. The State of Illinois through its filings in Langley is pushing to have the cases all consolidated under it as Chief Judge Rosenstengel, an Obama appointee, would be the judge hearing the case. The presumption is that an Obama appointee would be more favorable than a Trump appointee such as Judge McGlynn. Mind you, judge shopping is frowned upon.

From the state’s motion filed on January 26th:

This Court typically consolidates cases into the lower-numbered case, which is typically the earlier-filed case. In this instance, however, the present case was initiated in state court on January 13, 2023—before Harrel, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, and Barnett were filed on January 17, 24, and 24, respectively—and removed on January 23. In comparable circumstances involving removed cases, this Court has consolidated into the higher-numbered case. See Spurgeon v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106366, *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2007) (consolidating into the higher-numbered case because lower-numbered case may have been removed prematurely). Because this case was the first-filed in any forum, state or federal, Defendant Brendan Kelly respectfully requests that Harrel, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois,
and Barnett be consolidated here.

Thomas Maag, attorney for the plaintiffs in Langley, responded on January 27th. He first said:

The Defendant Kelly, who in the experience of undersigned counsel, rarely actually removes cases to federal court, due to the perceived fear of the state that doing so may waive sovereign immunity, did, in fact, remove this case to federal court, obviously thinking this Court a more favorable forum that its own state courts. That is Defendant Kelly’s right, but it is interesting.

Maag goes on to add that the longstanding precedent in the Southern District going back to the time it was part of the Eastern District of Illinois is, with few exceptions, to consolidate in the lowest numbered case which would be Harrel. He notes that the more substantive reason for doing this is to avoid judge shopping. I think a strong argument could be made that this is indeed what the State of Illinois is seeking to do.

He concludes that the plaintiffs in Langley are not taking a position on whether or not to consolidate. However, if consolidation were to occur, it should be “into the lower case number of file in this Court, which is 23-cv-141-SPM” which is the Harrel case.

To conclude, it seems obvious that the State of Illinois is is trying to game the system to get a more favorable judge. While the attorneys in Harrel, Barnett, and FFL-IL have not filed motions objecting to the Illinois motion, it would be my considered guess that they would prefer it be lowest numbered case (Harrel) with the original judge assigned to that case (McGlynn).

UPDATE: See my later post where Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel transferred this case and FFL-IL to Judge McGlynn.

Oral Arguments In NYSRPA V. Bruen

Todd Vandermyde and I have had multiple conversations regarding the Supreme Court this last few months. Todd, for those that don’t know him, was the NRA’s lobbyist in Illinois for many years. He also coordinated with NRA-ILA on bringing cases at the state and Federal level against restrictions in the Prairie State. Don Moran, former president of the Illinois State Rifle Association, once told me that the reason Todd was successful in Springfield is that he knew the gun laws better than anyone and could quote any section of the laws verbatim at will.

Todd has been reading the tea leaves in NYSRPA v. Bruen from the oral arguments. He found some interesting things in them especially with regard to comments by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Todd lays out his thoughts in the YouTube below. While we are waiting for the decision, this gives some things to think about and to look for in the final decision.

Moving Dirt

The Aurora Sportsmen’s Club in Waterman, Illinois has a large tract of land on which they are always building even more ranges. I last mentioned them in 2020 when they were prevented from being open due to Gov. J. B. Pritzker’s Covid restrictions. This despite being a huge outdoor facility where “social distancing” was easily accomplished.

My friend Todd Vandermyde is part of the club and likes to play with big Tonka toys. Really big toys! He does this when he has some free time from lobbying the Illinois General Assembly on gun rights.

If you ever wondered what went into building a major facility like this watch the next two videos. Between a D8 Caterpillar bulldozer and an excavator, they are moving tons and tons of dirt.

You can see more of his videos on his YouTube channel called “Freedom’s Steel”.

An Honest To God Straw Purchase Prosecution

Those of us in the gun rights community know that straw purchases are often used by prohibited persons to get around background checks. A person with a clean record, often female, is used to fill out the Form 4473 and to make the purchase with money provided by the prohibited person. This person, the straw purchaser, has just broken federal law by lying on the Form 4473 when they said they were the actual purchaser in response to Question 21.a. That is a violation of 18 USC 922a6. Violating that statute carries a sentence of up to 10 years.

If you look at the prosecution statistics for lying on the Form 4473, you find that it is not often prosecuted. In FY 2013-FY 2017 or the second Obama term, there were a total of 533 prosecutions for this offense. They made up only 1.4% of all prosecutions for violating federal firearms laws. Being a felon in possession made up the overwhelming majority of prosecutions. It appears the Trump Administration made it more a priority as prosecutions increased to 2.6% in the first year of that administration. The database from Syracuse University did not specify how many people were actually convicted nor what sentences were given.

Bearing this in mind, it was interesting to receive a press release from the BATFE Chicago Field Division on just such an arrest and indictment. Usually these releases talk about either a reward for information on a gun store burglary or the conviction of violent criminal/gang member/drug dealer on a multitude of charges.

A woman has been indicted on federal firearm charges for allegedly straw purchasing handguns in a Chicago suburb on behalf of another individual.

On three occasions in 2019 and 2020, DIAMOND SMITH purchased a total of seven handguns, including two semi-automatic pistols, from a licensed firearms dealer in Oak Forest, Ill., and falsely certified on federal forms that she was the actual buyer, according to an indictment returned in U.S. District Court in Chicago.  In reality, Smith purchased the guns on behalf of another individual, the charges allege.

Smith, 28, of Chicago, is charged with three counts of making false statements in connection with the acquisition of a firearm….

“Straw purchasers too often play a grave role in enabling the unlawful possession of guns and the violence that can follow,” said U.S. Attorney Lausch. “Our office is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to stop the flow of guns to individuals who cannot legally purchase them.”

After reading the actual indictment, the firearms purchased by Smith were all semi-auto pistols. There were four Glocks, a Walther, a Taurus, and a Smith & Wesson. Notably, one was listed as a “Glock G42 .390 caliber pistol.” I can’t say I’m surprised that no one caught that little error.

Does Aurora Sportsmen’s Club Look Like A Golf Course To You?

Take a look at that picture above. It is an aerial photo of the Aurora Sportsmen’s Club in Waterman, Illinois. It has rifle and pistol bays ranging from 50 feet to 600 yards. It has two Skeet fields, three Trap fields, a 5-stand course, a 12-stand Sporting Clays course, and an archery range. On top of all of that, it has three stocked fishing ponds.

Now tell me who in their right mind would confuse this with a golf course and want to regulate it in the same manner.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) issued Executive Order 2020-10 on March 20th. It explicitly lists firearm and ammo dealers and suppliers as essential businesses. It also said “outdoor activity” was a permitted reason to leave home so long as social distancing was observed. This included both golf course and shooting ranges.

A week later, Gov. Pritzker issued a subsequent order that ordered golf courses closed and shooting ranges such as those of the Aurora Sportsmen’s Club which didn’t have an attached gun store closed as well. They closed upon the advice of legal counsel when golf courses closed.

As a letter this week to Gov. Pritzker from Eric Callis, President of ASC, makes clear, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity does not consider them an “essential business” and have said they have to remain closed.

Like many businesses, our not-for-profit club is being impacted by the stay at home order and shutdown of non-essential entities. We have followed the guidelines as proposed and with the revisions of March 27, closed the Club except to law enforcement agencies that needed to complete training to maintain certification and proficiency.

During this time we have watched as marijuana dispensaries remain open. We now see that dog groomers are going to be allowed to open. Even golf courses are being allowed to resume limited operations. Yet each time we reach out to DCEO through our elected officials, we continue to be told we can not reopen under any conditions.

So while golf courses, dog groomers, and pot shops (cannabis dispensaries) are allowed to reopen, a huge outdoor facility spread out of hundreds of acres is ordered to remain closed. Of particular relevance to this issue was the 7th Circuit’s ruling in Ezell v. Chicago which noted in reference to shooting ranges, “The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.”

In the letter cited above, Callis asks Gov. Pritzker for a written explanation with specifics as to why they aren’t allowed to reopen.

Ranges, training, and practice for proficiency protected under Heller, McDonald, and Ezell are not afforded the same opportunities as golf courses, dog groomers, and marijuana dispensaries?

Non-constitutionally protected activities are given more deference and protection than those enumerated via the Bill of Rights under the Second Amendment and court rulings?

Are hundreds of people allowed at indoor stores, yet we are not allowed to open up a 300-acre outdoor facility?

Can’t we re-open if we follow the same type of guidelines as golf courses?

The club has also appealed to US Attorney General William Barr who has told US Attorneys to be on the lookout for overly strict state and local orders which tread upon constitutional rights.

We, therefore, ask you to determine if those orders barring the use of indoor or outdoor ranges for the “training and practice” of firearms to maintain proficiency as enumerated in Ezell violate fundamental constitutional rights and are an overreach as you described in your memo.

We find it odd that dog grooming businesses in confined spaces are allowed to open, conduct business, and see people while our 300-acre outdoor range is not.  We find it troubling that there appears to be a political double standard for outdoor recreational activities that are not protected by the Constitution with enumerated rights but may be more politically correct.  We also find it inexplicable that drugs still considered to be illegal for sale and possession under Federal law are allowed to be sold, used, and shops that sell marijuana are open for business while actual legal conduct and constitutionally protected activities are being denied.

We appreciate your help in this matter and look forward to hearing from either your office or your representative.

According to the DeKalb County Health Department, they have had 101 confirmed cases of COVID-19. The overwhelming majority of the over 50,000 cases of COVID-19 in Illinois are in Chicago and Cook County. What might be appropriate for the dense urban areas of Chicago and its suburbs is not the same for rural DeKalb County where the club is located. Indeed, the Illinois Department of Public Health maps show zero cases in the club’s location of Waterman, Illinois.

Keeping the Aurora Sportmen’s Club closed is not good public policy nor, in my opinion, constitutional. I hope someone in Springfield wakes up sooner than later.

Movement On School Safety In Illinois

The Illinois Association of School Boards’ Resolution Committee is recommending passage of a school safety resolution backing voluntary armed school staff. The measure will be voted on at the Joint Annual Conference to be held November 22nd through 24th in Chicago. IASB represents 98% of the school districts in the state of Illinois.

The resolution entitled Student Safety states:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Illinois Association of School Boards shall support and advocate for legislation which provides local school boards the option of developing Student Safety and Protection Plans which allow voluntary district employees, in any capacity, the ability to carry a concealed firearm on district property, provided the employee has a valid Illinois FOID card, holds a certified Illinois Concealed Carry License, has completed all additional trainings and certifications set forth by the respective school board, one of which MUST include yearly certified Active Shooter Training. Only district employees who fulfill all requirements listed and receive Superintendent and Board approval would be eligible as an active and armed part of the Student Safety and Protection Plan.

The resolution was submitted by Mercer County School District 404. As part of their rationale for passage of this resolution, they pointed out that their district has 5 school building in three different towns spread out over 378 square miles. They go on to add:

The districts in our state should be allowed to determine what is best for them, rather than leaving the determination to those in Springfield who do not know or understand communities outside their own.

The Resolutions Committee agreed and noted that rural school districts do not have “the fast response times of emergency responders in urban and suburban areas.” They went on to point out the lag times can be substantial due to both geography and resources. This plus the fact that the decision on armed school staff would be left to local discretion were the primary reasons that they urged passage.

The Daily Northwestern reported that the IASB delegate for the Evanston/Skokie School District 65, Joseph Halipern, opposes firearms in schools but did recognize it is as a concern for rural school districts.

“The district and Resolution Committee’s rationale for putting (the resolution) in speaks to the diversity of school districts in Illinois, and it makes a lot of sense,” Hailpern said. “Districts in rural communities have a very different lived experience regarding access to police, proximity to police and response times.”

Halipern serves on the District 65 Board of Education and is principal of Braeside Elementary School in Highland Park located in District 112.

A similar resolution was voted down last year by the IASB delegates.

The issue really comes down to the fact that rural school districts are different that large urban and suburban school districts. They generally have a smaller tax base, less resources, have slower emergency response times, and are less anti-gun. They are miles – not mere blocks – away from police or sheriff’s departments.

The sad thing is that even if the IASB passes this Student Safety resolution at their Joint Annual Conference it won’t get through the Illinois General Assembly. Even if that unlikely event were to happen, Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D-IL), would veto the bill and school safety be damned if it means armed school staff.

Village Of Deerfield (Illinois) To Appeal Overturn Of Its AWB

The Village of Deerfield, Illinois had passed an ordinance in 2018 that would have banned standard capacity magazines and “assault weapons” (sic) broadly defined. They were sued by the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation in the case of Easterday v. Deerfield. A second case was filed against the village by Guns Save Lives which was supported by the NRA.

The village lost in March when the Lake County Circuit Court issued a permanent injunction against the ordinance. Judge Luis Berrones found that the ordinance was a new law and not an amendment of a prior ordinance. In 2013 when the Illinois General Assembly passed the Concealed Carry Act and an amended FOID Act, they gave home rule municipalities a few days to amend their ordinances which could have included assault weapon bans. After that time, this power was reserved to the state.

Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune is reporting that Deerfield plans to appeal.

The Village of Deerfield plans to appeal a judge’s March 22 ruling permanently blocking the village from enforcing a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.


In a short statement Tuesday, the village announced that Mayor Harriet Rosenthal and the village board had unanimously agreed April 15 to appeal the ruling of Lake County Circuit Court Judge Luis Berrones to the Illinois Appellate Court.


In that ruling, Berrones contended that Deerfield overstepped its authority in April 2018 when it enacted a ban on assault weapons after the Illinois legislature had declared such regulations to be the exclusive power of the state.

The village’s statement on the appeal notes that they are being represented pro bono.

We appreciate the continued pro bono services that have been provided already, and that will be provided throughout the appellate process by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Mr. Christopher Wilson, partner of the Chicago office of Perkins Coie. We continue to believe that these weapons have no place in our community and that our common-sense assault weapon regulations are legal and were properly enacted.”

So an unholy alliance of gun prohibitionists and Big Law (Perkins Coie has 1,000+ lawyers) continues to conspire to help the Village of Deerfield trample on the rights of its citizens to protect themselves. This is lawfare at its worst.