Hap

It’s fine with me if the Court focuses on 2A issues.

It would be interesting to know the geographic distribution of these enforcement actions, at whatever level of detail can be provided without identifying individuals. Presumably city/county would be ok.

This sort of reasoning - limit the damage to the 7th Circuit, or at least retain control over when the issue gets to the Supreme Court - worked out well for them in the case of concealed carry, considering the delay between Moore/Shepard v Madigan and NYSRPA v Bruen. Bought them almost a decade. SCOTUS can change a lot in a decade.

There are so many cases and so many decision points in the handling of each of them that I am just plain not going to get excited about anything that isn't definitive. Granting cert, yeah, publishing a decision, absolutely, anything else, nope. Even denying cert doesn't mean anything in the current environment, where the Court has a choice of a dozen cases on any given issue, and no need to account for why it doesn't want to hear any particular one of them. We'll get there. Too slowly, but we'll get there.

So, a little over a kilopage of allegedly relevant alleged history. Too much to read but I did scan the tables of contents. Same old stuff we've been seeing in every case since Bruen. I would have thought JB would want to set an example, what with having his eye on the White House and all. Guess not.

Expect ATF, like every other Federal regulatory agency, to spend every second between now and the election adopting as much of the D regulatory wishlist as possible. The only way it will ease off a bit is if Biden manages to win in November, but that doesn't really help matters any.

They will avoid charging wherever possible until SCOTUS is done with the matter.

When my wife started practicing law, incorrect spelling, punctuation, or grammar in something prepared for a client could be a career-ender, and, if repeated, usually was. Standards have slipped considerably since then. SCOTUS itself still does reasonably well, at least where those areas are concerned.

Twelve pages and not a word wasted. This brief may be the best piece of 2A exposition since Bruen.

Here's a link to the announcement on atf.gov. The actual steaming pile is linked about a screen down on the page, but there are some other references on the announcement page which may be useful. An overview is promised "soon" (perhaps after someone explains it to them). https://www.atf.gov/firearms/final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms

This freaking thing is over 400 pages. Leafing through it I have the impression that any gun I might want to sell will be a little pile of rust before I finish reading it. So far all I can tell is that the language seems designed to obscure, rather than clarify, DOJ’s intent.

How would IL's requirement to provide full access to medical records fare under this court's analysis?

I think the key words in McGlynn's statement were "truly reserved for military use" with the emphasis on "truly." To me that signals a pretty high degree of skepticism toward Easterbrook's wholesale consignment of anything he doesn't like to the category of military weapons. McGlynn may put a pretty tight fence around the concept of "reserved for military use." We'll know soon.

If Pritzker and his supporters are smart - big "if" there - they'll take the temporary W and leave it at that.

I fully expect all of this to be gone sometime next year. But I do like living in a society where people follow the law, so one way or the other I'll go along with it while it's still in force. It's just hard when the law is as full of gaps and inconsistencies as this one. I suppose the tax code is more complex, but you generally don't get hit with felony charges if you guess wrong on the meaning of one of the Form 1040 instructions.