Euler

I believe the idea of "not later than 14 days before" is that any such waiver should not delay oral arguments.

Charles Nichols is/was the president of California Right to Carry, an organization that may be only him, incorporated to sue California for its firearm laws, particularly its open carry ban.

On March 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court upheld lower court opinions that Springfield Armory was not liable for the shooting death of JR Gustafson in a lawsuit brought by his parents and Brady United. The facts of the case are scattered across several documents. I'll summarize. On March 20, 2016, 13-year-old JR Gustafson and his 14-year-old friend ("the juvenile") were visiting the home of another of their friends. In that home was a Springfield XD-9. Although there was not a magazine inserted into it, there was still a round in the chamber. The juvenile, in some manner not elucidated, found the firearm and, allegedly believing it to be unloaded, picked it up, pointed it at JR, and pulled the trigger, discharging it and killing JR. The juvenile admitted to this act and was subsequently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in juvenile court. The XD-9 was essentially not altered from its factory configuration and was fully functional in every way. In particular, the XD-9 does not have a magazine disconnect safety. JR's parents brought a suit in state court claiming that Springfield Armory was liable for JR's death, because the XD-9 was defective due to its lack of a magazine disconnect safety. (PLCAA does not apply to firearms with manufacturing or design defects.) The court dismissed the case on the basis of Springfield Armory's civil immunity under PLCAA, anyway. On June 10, the Gustafsons asked the US Supreme Court to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari from June 23 to July 23. On June 16, Alito granted the extension. (shadow docket)

On June 25, the appellate court scheduled oral arguments for August 4.

On June 23 in appellate court, meanwhile, the ATF/DOJ moved to extend the abeyance another 60 days. On June 25, the court granted the motion.

On June 26, the circuit court scheduled oral arguments for September 12.

On June 25 in appellate court, meanwhile, the court continued the stay. The court ordered that parties update it at 60-day intervals regarding whether to continue the stay.

On June 16, the judge set the following schedule: 7/7: response to motion to dismiss is due 7/14: reply is due 8/26: status hearing

On June 16, parties filed their joint status report as scheduled. On June 17, the court reminded parties that they are to file a status report on July 9 regarding whether they consider settlement to be an option. I predict "No."

On June 27, the district judge denied the motion. FWIW, the McCoy and Brown cases in WV about Under-21 handgun purchases are the cases where (bizarrely IMO) IL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA (led by Giffords and Brady) somehow convinced the court to let them be defendants (not just amici) defending the federal handgun ban.

On June 23, the abeyance expired. On June 26, the ATF/DOJ moved to extend the abeyance. On June 27, the plaintiffs (including TX, but led by GOA) responded opposing the abeyance.

Cases from state SCs can be petitioned to the US SC. The US SC didn't take Charles Nichols' open carry cases from California. I doubt they'll take one from IL.

Following the Firearm Training link from the list of professions on IDFPR, leads to a page titled Alarm Professions, which includes several links for "Firearm Instruction." Indeed, "Firearm Instructor" is just a trainer for armed guards. The list of qualifications is slightly interesting. It's a FOID and one of: NRA certificate for Law Enforcement Firearms InstructorIllinois Law Enforcement Police Training and Standards Board recognized range instructorEquivalent experience or education received in military service or federal law enforcement serviceAny other equivalent experience or education as deemed by the Division

Generally speaking, the purpose of a professional license is to exclude most people from being able to practice that profession. So entrenched fingerprint vendors apparently lobbied to eliminate upstart competition. The lock is in. What group lobbied to prevent people from becoming firearm instructors? Ordinarily it's the group that already practices, but that seems unlikely in this case. How broad is the requirement to have a license? Like does Massad Ayoob now have to get an IL instructor license if he ever wants to teach another MAG-40 class in IL?

The petition has been scheduled for conference in September.