* Tribune…

A downstate judge on Tuesday dismissed a trio of lawsuits brought by a former Republican attorney general candidate challenging Illinois’ sweeping gun ban, citing last week’s state Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law in a separate case.

The outcome was expected after the high court in a 4-3 decision said the ban on an extensive list of high-power semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines does not violate the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

In that case and those brought by attorney Thomas DeVore, the plaintiffs argued the law violated the constitution by creating exemptions for certain trained professionals and for people who owned the now-banned firearms at the time the prohibition took effect, among other issues.

DeVore, who last year ran unsuccessfully for attorney general, said he plans to appeal Tuesday’s lower court ruling. […]

In addition to dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled, Jarman vacated temporary restraining orders that had blocked enforcement of the law against more than 150 licensed gun dealers and other entities as well as thousands of individual gun owners who were plaintiffs in the cases.

* From the judge…

This matter is taken off advisement. This matter having previously come on for hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, having considered the pleadings, the arguments, and applicable authority, now being more fully advised in the premises, I find and Order as follows: Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint For Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief challenging the constitutionality of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, also known as Public Act 102-1116 or House Bill 5471.

In Count I, Plaintiffs allege the act violates the three reading rule contained in the Illinois Constitution. In Count II, they allege that exceptions to the prohibition of possession, and sale of certain weapons, and devices contained in the act, violate the right to equal protection. Count III seeks a permanent injunction against enforcement based on the grounds alleged in Counts I and II.

Since this court heard arguments on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its Opinion in CAULKINS v. PRITZKER, etal. 2023 IL 129453. In that case the Court held that the exemptions contained in the act did not deny equal protection, and went on to say that the Plaintiffs in that case are not similarly situated to the trained professionals to which the exceptions apply. Based on CAULKINS v. PRITZKER, Count II is dismissed with prejudice.

The Court did not address the three reading rule, because the Plaintiffs in that case failed to cross-appeal from the denial of relief on those grounds in the trial court. The Illinois Supreme Court has, however previously held that because of the enrolled bill doctrine upon certification by the Speaker and the Senate President, a bill is conclusively presumed to have met all procedural requirements for passage, including the three readings rule. GEJA’S CAFE, v. METROPOLITAN PIER & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, 153 Ill. 2d 239, 258-260 (1992). Based on the enrolled bill doctrine, Count I is dismissed with prejudice.

Because both Counts I and II are dismissed with prejudice, there is no underlying claim to pursue, Count III is dismissed with prejudice. Based on the foregoing, The pending Motions to Quash Non Party Subpoena and Motion to Quash Discovery Request are moot and not addressed.

The Temporary Restraining Order previously entered is vacated.

* DeVore’s response…

From the time Dan Caulkins copied and pasted my client’s complaint and filed it as his own and then hastily ran to the Supreme Court woefully unprepared to make a compelling case for gun owners in this state, I raised the strong likelihood that he would lose his case for the exact reasons the Supreme Court ruled. The lack of effort taken by Caulkins and his legal team is why the Court ruled that he had failed to meet their burden. I called it from the beginning. I commend the AG’s office for their skillful defense and ability to get Caulkins to do what they wanted, and I’m sure they are laughing at the naivety and ignorance exhibited by Caulkins.

Having said that, the IL Supreme Court’s decision that Caulkins failed to meet his burden does not bar my clients from being able to proceed to make their case that they are in fact similarly situated to all or part of the exempt class. The decision for dismissal by the circuit court in Effingham county was premature and in error as my clients have a right to make their case. The circuit court dismissed our client’s case without even so much as a hearing on the matter. As such, we will file a motion to reconsider immediately. In the event the motion to reconsider should fail, we will appeal to the Appellate Court and eventually the Supreme Court. We have evidence to prove the exempt class has nothing to do with training and our clients have a right to present it. Moreover, we will not waive our procedural constitutional violation of the three-readings clause, which Caulkins foolishly did, and we will present this argument to the Supreme Court as well.

Sadly, Caulkin’s ineptitude, and desire to have his five minutes of fame, has presently harmed millions of law-abiding gun owners in this state.

Caulkins’ Facebook comments have been bombarded. Click here for the vitriol. Whew.

…Adding… Heh…

Hey ⁦@wics_abc20⁩, great story this morning on how Tom DeVore plans to take state’s gun ban to Effingham County court. But Newschannel 20, you didn’t tell viewers the real news: DeVore’s case was already dismissed.
https://t.co/zcZzCK1DNc

— Rick Pearson (@rap30) August 17, 2023