richp

So the first seven items in my feed this morning were litigation updates that Euler has provided. And then I realized the importance and value of this diligent pursuit of our legal issues, and just felt the need to express appreciation. Bravo!!!

Excuse me for being cynical, but until these changes are enacted in legislation (as in passed by Congress and signed by the President) , or published in the Federal Register for actual implementation, this just looks to me an awful lot like political posturing.

Mine is ready to mail tomorrow.

The problem really is that the liberal Democrats have so thoroughly penetrated government at important levels. Although he wasn't ideal, there actually was a chance that Rauner could have done at least some good. But Madigan and a thoroughly entrenched Democratic legislature frustrated anything he tried. And until we very affirmatively move the balance in the General Assembly, I'm pessimistic that any Republican who serves as Governor can get much, if anything, done.

I would assign near zero probability to that.

I hear what you are saying, but we're talking apples and oranges, folks. Its not what constitutional principle might or might not be involved. If you concede that enforcement of one law is discretionary, regardless of the reason, you provide an argument for discretionary enforcement in other areas. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favor of restoring the full range of constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. But in developing a strategy, you have to recognize that there could be collateral impact in the legal arena, which might not be agreeable when thinking about other aspects of governance.

The problem here is that if you approve of sanctuary for this, then you provide collateral justification for sanctuary for illegals.

Yeah, but Thomas was sending a message about the way he's going to be trying to orchestrate decisions on anything gun related that comes before them in the future.

Focus people, focus... Our common goal here is to focus on full restoration and reactivation of our Second Amendment rights.

If only just one more Supreme Court decision would resolve this for all time... The antis are going to try to ferret out every nook and cranny available to them, and litigate every one to the fullest extent they can. And in most cases they will have the resources of government behind them to prevent the exercise of our rights. It's going to be a real tough and long battle on many fronts.

I'm beginning to worry that if this drags out, we may be putting too much faith in the extent and lasting effect of Bruen. The SC needs to quickly and incontrovertibly slap down these recalcitrant district and appeals court judges, so states like NY and IL don't think they can do an end run.

Something else is going on here. This kind of thing should be seen as a back door attack on the historical principle behind Bruen -- illustrated by dredging up obscure laws (even though they may be niche statutes) that are dramatically contrary to today's understanding of the law and societal standards. By doing this they hope to erode Bruen's powerful impact.

What a tragedy that we have to puzzle about simple issues that have such weighty legal consequences here in Illinois, when such things are a non issue in most of the rest of the country.

Hi Bystander, Thanks. I guess I need to explain in advance all the steps I have already taken before I reach out here for advice... To be clear and complete, I have tried to use the methods described in that cut and paste selection. It was not evident that renewals only were possible at the 90 day mark, and could not be done as far in advance as I wanted. Thinking operator error could be at work prompted me to ask. FWIW. Rich

Hi King, So there is no way to renew in advance and lock in a ten year card, in case the five year card becomes law? Rich