EdDinIL

If the state did this: Would that delay the oral arguments, assuming it was opposed and not joint?

For the TL;DW crowd: The video discusses how 5th Circuit is withdrawing that opinion.

I'm skeptical the amicus brief will carry any weight whatsoever with Easterbrook, or possibly he'll take his time digesting it to figure out some way to spin it. I'll continue to wallow in my skepticism until the courts say otherwise, thank you very much.

It doesn't look like the FOID Act lists any penalties for the state not complying with various sections of the act. Do any sections of the Illinois Compiled Statutes have any such provisions?

"The report also said ISP didn’t maintain adequate controls over reporting and monitoring state property. " Is this the moment where we find out some flunky in Springfield has been leaking FOID, CCL, and PICA registration details to someone? Steeeeeeeeve, we neeeed you!!!

Which Illinois law prohibits them, PICA? Are they outright banned, or one of the many registerable items? Not that any state law banning them is constitutional, but it still is a state law until someone says otherwise, and any IL resident getting one back is lining up to be arrested.

Well, yes, the courts can always do that. I was looking at the specific circumstance here, though. If the court drags its feet and does nothing until July, can it ignore the filing for the addition of the new plaintiff, moot the case, and thus trash the new plaintiff filing? Or could court reject the new plaintiff filing at the last second, leaving the court free to moot the case without time to seek another plaintiff?

I didn't see a thread on a different case, Zherka v Bondi. It's described as prohibition of a non-violent felon. It's in the 2nd Circuit, and they just ruled against Zherka in favor of the government. Mark Smith has a video, and he references the same code, § 922(g)(1).

Can the court wait until the only existing plaintiff turns 21 and moot the case before accepting the 19-year old as a plaintiff?

She'll still want them banned for that very reason, "common use" test be damned.

I assume they're still waiting on the plaintiffs' response. Is there anything on the schedule beyond 6/27?

insert fainting gif here That's excellent news for once.

Cross-posting this here. It's Todd's commentary (he posted it in the Snope thread) on Snope and Viramontes and their effect on Barnett. Fast forward to who knows when... What if this doesn't go our way, gets to SCOTUS, and they find some reason to deny cert yet again? I'm still waiting for the "no circuit split" argument to be pulled out of the hat at SCOTUS, and that would be when they'd do it. Is there anything else in the pipeline after that? Todd touches on that briefly around 11 am.

(Mostly) non-hyperbolic review of the denials from Washington Gun Law. 12 minutes long, I think it's worth listening to.

2027 seems optimistic, and do we realistically think that'll do it? SCOTUS affirms Heller, reverses PICA nationwide, freedom reigns... Until a D House/Senate/President pack the court to overturn Bruen and Dobbs in lightning-quick speed, because magically the courts will fast track everything.