DON’T GET YOUR HOPES UP: Analysis of the Tom Devore Challenge to Gun Ban

Tom Devore’s emergency hearing was held Wednesday in Effingham County circuit court.  Thanks to Edgar County Watchdogs, we now have a transcript of the hearing.  We’re supposed to have a decision on the request for a temporary restraining order by the end of business today.

The transcript proved very helpful and valuable to preview and analyze AG Kwame Raoul’s defense strategies when it comes to 2A litigation.  In short:  Not impressive.

First off, fair disclosure.  I like DeVore and voted for him twice.  I’ve also heard some strong negatives about him from trusted sources.

Here are my quick takeaways.

1. Tom DeVore did VERY well in court Wednesday.  He ran rings around the incredibly tone-deaf attorneys from Kwame Raoul’s AG’s office.   And the positions the AG attorneys were taking were Alice in Wonderland make-believe.
2. DeVore’s lawsuit was only to provide relief to named plaintiffs.  Thanks, Tom.  You’re such a saint.  NOT.
3. He wasn’t making a Second Amendment claim, but the case obviously touched on it.  DeVore’s suit was more about the “process” used to pass the legislation (the “gut and replace” process along with the failure to have three readings of the amended bill) and an “Equal protection” challenge in that some arbitrary groups (retired cops, jailers, locksmiths) earned an exclusion in the bill, whereas a decorated Navy SEAL did not.  It’s not “equal protection” demanded in the 14th Amendment.
4. DeVore had some very not-so-nice things to say about the ISRA’s lawsuit run by David Sigale.  He put them a little less diplomatically than our passing, very charitable analysis of Sigale’s (pronounced “SEEgle” or “SEAgull”) complaint.  Specifically:  It is the work product you get when you just have to be first to file.

BOTTOM LINE: Don’t expect relief from this case, even if the judge grants a temporary restraining order for the 866-ish named plaintiffs.  In my very IANAL “expert” opinion:  I don’t see the Illinois Supreme Court to block the legislation based upon the arguments raised by DeVore and I’ll tell you why:  They’ve been raised in the past and courts have been VERY RETICENT to tell another branch of government how to execute their jobs in terms of the mechanics of legislating.  They’ll evaluate a statute, but they generally won’t intercede on the process that generated that legislation unless it’s over-the-top faulty.  I’m not sure Illinois legislative rules are there yet.

For more:

Point 1.

Devore kicked ass and took names during the hearing.  Here’s the transcript.  Well worth the read.  With some highlighted segments (done by Edgar County Watchdogs).

[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.gunssavelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GSL-v-Raoul-Ds-Response-to-Ps-MSJ-final.pdf” title=”GSL v Raoul – D’s Response to Ps’ MSJ (final)”]

The Illinois AG reps clearly weren’t at the top of their respective law school graduating classes.  They’re proving that that degree you earned with a C-average is just as valuable as the one received Magna Cum Laude.  So long as you passed the bar exam (no matter how many tries), you’re golden.  And if you can promote complete BS with a straight face, you might land a job at the AG’s office.

Point 2.

So he’s reportedly collected $200 per person times 866(ish) plaintiffs, or just shy of $180,000 in fees.  That’s one way to run a case and he seems to have refined that MO during COVID challenging face diapers and vax mandates.  He’s only really “won” one of those cases that we are aware of:  for Darren Bailey.  The rest, as far as we can tell, have been rejected or settled.  Running this “as applied” type lawsuit in this scenario really doesn’t help a) the named plaintiffs (read on as to why) or b) gun owners in general to any meaningful degree.

Even if these individual plaintiffs get the reprieve they’re looking for, it’s going to be of limited utility.  It’s not like the plaintiffs can go out and buy mags anywhere aside from the three gun shops listed as plaintiffs.  Yes, XRING CUSTOM and the others would be able to sell to anyone and everyone, it would still be illegal for anyone not listed as plaintiffs to BUY now-banned items.

Yes, this suit was very helpful in one aspect:  in illustrating just how ill-prepared our AG is when it comes to defending these lawsuits.

Point 3.

Good arguments, Tom.  But this has been hashed out plenty of times before and the courts haven’t really interceded except in exceptional cases.  Is this one of those?  I don’t think so, but we’ll all get front-row seats in how this one unfolds, thanks to the great interest among 2.4m gun owners.

Point 4.

You make the call.  Here’s a link in case the embed fails.

I disagree that the “equal protection” aspect is the over-arching issue here. He does make good arguments in that issue.

Here’s the ISRA’s filing.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.gunssavelife.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief.pdf” title=”Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief”]

AGAIN:  No matter what happens in this case, unless you’re a named plaintiff, it’s not going to make much difference for you.  Even if it’s wildly successful, you’re still not going to be able to buy one of America’s favorite rifles (legally) or magazines to feed it or your Glock 17 defensive handgun.

DeVore’s issues have been raised in the past and courts have been VERY RETICENT to tell another branch of government how to execute their jobs in terms of the mechanics of legislating.  The courts will evaluate a statute, but they generally won’t intercede on the process that generated that legislation unless it’s over-the-top faulty.  I’m not sure Illinois legislative rules are there yet.