Euler

If he were just some random guy, we'd be hoping that a fair application of the law might let him go, since the law is unjust. But since he's a member of the ruling elites, we're hoping for a fair application of the law, which would be to do to him what the law usually does to random guys. Frequently the only way to get a bad law changed is to get the ruling class to realize that it can be used against them the same way they use it against everyone else. Unfortunately that doesn't happen very often.

Before the CCL Act, this was how people carried legally. It's sometimes called "FOID Carry" and was advertised with the slogan "6 seconds to safety," since that's about how long it would take a well-trained person to draw and load a weapon.

High Standard made 9-chamber .22 caliber revolvers (22short, 22LR, and 22wmr).

In the following story, "senior" means high school senior. Are the police warning CCL-holders not to shoot kids with squirt guns?Are the police warning parents and students not to play the game in public places around other people? (It's pretty much the point of the game to play it in public places around other people.)If we see a student in a ski mask with a squirt gun, are we supposed to report him? "Don't shoot kids with squirt guns." I get that. "See something; Say something." What? "Hello, 911? My friend has a squirt gun and he says he's going to shoot everyone."

On April 8, the court ordered the US to file its appeal brief by May 14.

I saw some statistics a few years ago that said most applicants to law school were political "science" majors. The major with the highest proportion of acceptance was physics. Based on a single data point, the highest proportion of lawyers who move on to picking locks were physics undergrads.

Also, the docket and thus the ruling ...

On April 8, CA7 ruled that the case had been improperly removed from state court to federal court. The suit was brought against S&W, the gun shops that sold the guns that Crimo Jr. used, Crimo Jr., and Crimo Sr. The Crimos did not consent to the removal. Since all parties on S&W's side had to consent to the removal, the case should not have been removed. Somewhat bizarrely (IMO) CA7 said that S&W removing the case to federal court was intended make the litigation "needlessly costly" to the mob. The case has been remanded back to district court to decide if S&W must reimburse the plaintiffs for the legal expenses associated with the improper removal. The case will then proceed back to state court for litigation. However, CA7 narrowed the case against S&W. Against S&W, the mob had previously claimed (1) that the M&P-15 is a machine gun which is improperly advertised and (2) that S&W assisted in the mass shooting by providing Crimo Jr. with the weapon that he used. CA7 ruled that these are not separate legal claims, but that they are separate legal theories for why S&W is liable for the shooting. The only real claim against S&W is that it furnished Crimo Jr. with the weapon, whether the weapon was a machine gun or not. I'm not sure how much the state court will appreciate the federal court deciding what the claim against S&W is.

The CA7 docket is available.

Legal procedure is the real reason to hire an attorney. I'm not sure what Viramontes' options are. The point of formalized procedure is to insure legal issues are resolved. It's perverse when procedure is used to insure that they can't even be addressed.

On April 4, defendant Prince asked for an extension to file a response brief. On April 5, the court granted the extension. The schedule is now: 5/13: defendant's response is due 6/03: government's reply is due

On April 3, defendants filed their CA7 docketing statement, including that one of the original plaintiffs, Rubi Joyal, voluntarily removed himself from the district case on April 25, 2022. Since he was removed without prejudice (i.e., without a prohibition on renewing his claims), that means that the district judgment entered on March 1 was technically not a final judgment. Because Joyal has not filed any independent lawsuit, his claims have not been fully adjudicated, making this case ineligible for appeal. On April 4, CA7 ordered plaintiffs to respond by April 17 why this case should not be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, based on the ineligibility for appeal.

On April 4, the US filed its intent to appeal. On April 5, CA7 assigned case number 24-1534. (The docket is not yet available.)

Registration was required by January 1 for people who already possessed contraband firearms in Illinois. Registration is left open because, hard as it may be to believe, some people still move into Illinois and bring their firearms with them. Also people within Illinois may inherit contraband firearms. Such "new" and transferred firearms still need, by law, to be registered/updated. Registering after the deadline provides no legal defense against the requirement to complete registration by the deadline. ISP has no power to grant amnesty.