Howard Roark

Somebody DM me when I'm good-to-go, mmkay? I can't wait all day... /jk

I want to buy a semi-auto magazine fed 12ga tactical shotgun. I'm good-to-go now, ammiright? 😀

It's fun to laugh at, but there is no level of hypocrisy by the left and on the left which is too high for them to deny it. There is always "context" and rationalizing away that hypocrisy, because they're (D)ifferent.

But, but, but Rep. Jamie Raskin (Communist) recently informed us that SCOTUS isn't working hard enough and needs to be reformed (but just the non-communist justices).

I am too. This helps us with our cases. In California the state reversed their grandfathering of banned magazines. So people had to destroy their magazines or risk criminal charges. In Illinois, magazines that are banned for new acquisition are allowed if owned before early Jan 2023. You know all this. It is crystal clear that all grandfathering provisions in the IL law are temporary and will be called a loophole by the pols and corporate media. They will close the loophole which would be confiscation, unless we prevail in the courts. Most likely a SCOTUS decision in our case specifically would be needed. If a mag and semiautomatic gun ban from a different state is selected by SCOTUS and the ban struck down, I doubt IL would abide. Only direct reversal my SCOTUS in one of our cases will make Jelly Belly slow his roll against citizens guns,mags,ammo,commerce,yada,yada.

Search warrants cannot be issued for unregistered guns until Jan 1, 2024 when registration period closes, after which registration attempts will be rejected, search warrants likely.

I was in the "court house" (the Dirksen Building, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Chicago). I was on the 17th floor, which was overflow from the actual court room, so I watched on closed-circuit local in-building video. The room was about 90% full and was just another court room similar to the actual court room. I wore a black ball cap with white letters "Come And Take It" with an AR-15 embroidered image. I didn't see any obvious allies anywhere, and the people seated near me in the court room were law students who take a dim view of 2A, based upon the small-talk chatter I heard before the proceedings got started. Outside, I saw about 5 people from "March For Our Lives" with a folding table with some of their printed propaganda and no visitors. There were about 15 Chicago Police patrol officers in front of the building with nothing to do, no doubt at the Mayor's orders, but with no actual need other than to waste their time and the tax payers money. As I was about to walk the 6 blocks to the court house, I realized I had an automatic knife in my pocket, which I took out and left in my office. Had I made it to the court security with the knife, that would obviously have been problematic. I was glad I went. I missed seeing our various friends including many here who have been at other oral arguments in the past such as the McDonald case and Mary Shepherd's case. Much time was wasted by Judges Easterbrook and Wood on hand grenades, rocket launchers, abortion, and other issues not before the court. I think that was intentional because they must be quite frustrated that they are inferior court judges and are commanded by the US Constitution (which they detest) to follow the precedent of the SCOTUS, whether they like it or not, whether they are smarter then the SCOTUS Justices or not. Judge Easterbrook certainly agrees that he is an intellectual powerhouse, which is what others say about him. Judge Easterbrook is one of those intellectuals who have a massive blind spot that creates its own kind of stupidity. He thinks he has found the internal fallacy of the SCOTUS Heller reasoning and by showing the fallacy, he shows the illegitimacy of the Heller SCOTUS Opinion. I will ask a non-original question structured similarly as Judge Easterbrook's, a question that has been asked by jokesters and atheists for thousands of years to mock believers: Question: "If God is all-powerful, can He make something so massive and heavy, that He cannot lift it?" This question must be answered Yes or No, and either answer is intended to expose the religious Responder as a fraud and a hypocrite and that God does not exist. The question itself is a fraud. I would rephrase the question as "If Judge Easterbrook were God, can he make something so heavy that Judge Easterbrook could not lift it?". Since neither Yes or No are rational, we thereby prove the the non-existence of Judge Easterbrook. Wouldn't that be nice? His actual question, which he held onto like Gollum thirsting for the "Precious" Ring in the book "Lord of the Rings", was (paraphrased): If a type of gun cannot be banned (according to Heller) because it is in common use by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, can it be banned if it not in common use (as full auto machine guns are banned)? If you answer "No, you cannot ban guns in common lawful use but you can ban uncommon, rare, unusual guns", you are deemed by Easterbrook as a fraud and hypocrite, because any popular type of arm or gun was once rare, and you cannot have shifting standards of Constitutionality, according to his "logic". It cannot be allowed to ban guns that are uncommon but not ban guns that are in common use by citizens for lawful purposes. If you answer "Yes, the government can ban any arms", then you have answered as Judge Easterbrook wants, but if you represent the plaintiff's, you would or should get disbarred for failing to represent your client. Regardless of whether or not Judge Easterbrook has identified an irrationality in Heller or not (he hasn't), his job is to follow the orders of the SCOTUS, which is something he is unlikely to do. He didn't learn from getting overturned by SCOTUS in McDonald, and he is not about to start learning now. And I have, an average guy not as smart as Judge Easterbrook (although quite handsome as all would agree), exposed the idiocy of Judge Easterbrook's questioning on "common use", and shown him as the giant fraud that he certainly is. But he's too smart for that, in fact, he has no idea.

Would it be legal right now for a local gun store to sell a super-sized magazine to a named plaintiff individual?

Haha. Hilarious expression. Even funnier with the potato mispel. P-o-t-a-t-o-e ?

May be broader. Could include the whole country, limited to people who have the right to keep arms under the 2A.

Thanks and good luck to Andre and Maria ! (and thanks to whomever is paying our lawyers, maybe it's the NRA, but I'm not sure, doesn't matter). One State, One Law on the Right to Bear Arms.

lolololololol lolololololol lolololololol That lawyer doesn't understand that when you have a losing hand, just shout a little louder ! And that quote was from the defendants first sentence, lolol.

lololol Merry Christmas & Best Holiday Greetings! (I like all the holidays).

from the court: lololol

Excellent announcement! Victory! I just now got the news. Many people have been harmed and worse by Illinois's violation of our civil rights on this issue. When I sometimes hear complaints from people who don't like the Second Amendment, well, they should think of the people like our plaintiffs in this case, as well as the many other victims through the years. Perhaps they think their "feelings" are more important than that though.