EdDinIL

He's holding Illinois hostage. That will keep him smugly satisfied while he sits on the case. Unless SCOTUS reaches down somehow and nukes the case for him, he'll happily spend his time looking for holes in the Viramontes decision (assuming it goes the way we hope it will).

That consolidation makes it national across all 50 states, and not just Cook County and CT for arguing convenience? I did not realize that. Well, that'll get the blue states scrambling with a big middle finger to SCOTUS as soon as they rule.

As if 7CA needs an excuse, but I'm sure this will cause them to delay Barnett, not shake it loose. Viramontes is only Cook County, Barnett is the entire state, and I doubt SCOTUS will have the guts to make a pro-2A Viramontes decision apply to anything else but Cook County.

Fast forward to the ruling being announced in 2027: SCOTUS: You can't ban semi-automatic rifles, e.g. AR-15s. States: But we can make them terribly expensive to purchase, require ridiculous modifications, and make them terribly difficult to use and maintain!

Consolidated with Grant v. Higgins.

Cert granted, consolidated with Viramontes v. Cook County.

SCOTUS' last day of the term is tomorrow... Twitterers are expecting "something" today or tomorrow on all the hardware cases.

Trick statement: Many legislatures and courts already treat Second Amendments rights as second class rights, there's no need to make them that way.

Hawaii will probably pass a bill declaring the entire state to be a sensitive place. The government there needs to be kicked in a sensitive place. (Here in IL, too!)

Vampire rule overturned 6-3! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf

As slow as the legislative process is, I'm glad to see that the answer is "NO".

Is there a precedent for a Federal court (not SCOTUS) declaring that a portion of a state's constitution is unconstitutional?

And when the 7th, 9th, and other anti-gun circuits figure out how to sidestep the per curiam?