EdDinIL

Illinois: "We were last in the nation in allowing concealed carry, and we will be last in the nation to allow suppressors!"

That was copied from the link about Beslan. If 32 heavily armed terrorists showed up at a school here, intent on causing maximum harm, I'm not sure any on-site civilian force would be equipped to deal with it. I'm not saying getting rid of GFSZs is a bad idea, but if we're going to use examples, we should be (and have been!) pointing to any number of 1-or-2 shooter situations that were in dire need of immediate intervention. Yet, the anti-gunners simply refuse to listen.

Them: People in CA can vote by mail. There's no fee for that, and this case is about public concealed carry, not keeping a firearm at home. In fact, a public voting fee would be worth establishing so election judges can be fairly compensated for their time. I lol'd.

I thought I had replied to davel501's post about the fee for voting. Did it get lost in the move, deleted because it might give the other side ideas, or am I just gaslighting myself thinking I posted it?

I know it's a long shot you'll know this, but in Euler we trust. Has anyone ever argued for mootness at orals, then successfully had the case mooted when a ruling is issued at the end of the term? In other words, dragging the case out as long as possible before nuking it?

What's unreasonable? Would the suit be mooted if Glendale cut their fees by 50%? I would argue anything more than $0 is unreasonable. Has anyone tried (and presumably failed) to sue over the cost of the IL CCL?

Dismissed as improvidently granted. Oh, wait, they haven't packed SCOTUS yet. Nevermind.

The brief reworded the question originally presented to SCOTUS. The "slight change" (in Kostas' words) could be intepreted as "you can't ban them completely, but you can limit the heck out of them and we'd be fine with it." That's how the gun grabbers are going to interpret it, anyway.

Viramontes/Grant is scheduled for December 2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2026.pdf

That better include detachable magazines, or you know the next round of laws will require rifles and pistols to have fixed or pinned magazines.

Don't be such a doomer, that's my job! Good news, as of right now the $200 reindexed for inflation is a shade under $5K. That will be their approach. Reindex for inflation, problem solved. If they do reintroduce the tax, what happens to all the NFA items that were purchased between now and then?

Any predictions on the long-term for Illinois? I assume we're going to be last in the nation like with concealed carry.

Illinois: "Can we pass a bill making homes with school-aged children sensitive places?"

Tyranny achieved.

New Jersey asked Third Circuit to stay its own ruling, apparently on the day New Jersey told gun dealers they could start selling previously-prohibited items.