All Activity

Magazines are arms. LC Magazines are in common use. Seems to me that magazine capacity cannot be restricted. Cheers, Tim

And “they” rarely recover those that they do lose! 😃

If the ruing in Viramontes is that rifles cannot be banned, then there's nothing about magazines that would allow IL to ban rifles. If rifles cannot be banned, then magazines are arms. If magazines are arms, then IL cannot ban magazines. The only remaining question would be whether magazine capacity can be restricted, because it's a question Viramontes does not address. That's how only magazines would be put off another two years.

If we don't get a ruling on mags as part of Viramontes, then there really is no point to this because it is just a game of wack-a-mole. IL will simply pass a feature ban on semi-auto rifles with detachable mags. So you can have your AR15s, but only if they have fixed internal magazines that hold 5 rounds or less.

I probably flubbed a C&P.

It seems to me that the threat to the 22-year-old was on-going at the time of the shot. Maybe CWB will have better details soon. Also, my vocabulary peeve: Police cannot "recover" a gun that they didn't lose. The 4th Amendment calls it "seizure," because that's what it is.

The Supreme Court can do anything it wants with its own dockets, but I doubt that it will add to the questions presented. The 3rd Circuit Cheeseman opinion rules that magazines are arms, because they are required for semi-automatic weapons to function. which goes beyond the minimum requirement of merely facilitating the function of semi-automatic weapons. It seems likely to me that:Cheeseman and Barnett will be petitioned and held pending Viramontes;Viramontes will contain some statement that magazines are arms;Cheeseman and Barnett (and the others) will be GVR'd to be made consistent with Viramontes; andsome of the others (e.g., Barnett) will be redone to uphold mag bans, so they'll boomerang back to the Supreme Court again a year later (2028) for the magazine question (with a circuit split). One step at a time ... Meanwhile, NJ will still get 30-round mags before IL.

Guessing some merge issues as I had a comment removed. The Mods have plenty to do so I understand

Whatever, just get it done and get rid of it all

So you would prefer that the plaintiffs hurry up and challenge the waiting period incompetently? Or perhaps you think the plaintiffs are in league with the state to fail the challenge? I prefer that the process be complete and competent. If the challenge fails, it shouldn't be because the plaintiffs pulled a Caulkins and screwed us all.

It needs to be heard and in a timely manner. Keep kicking it down the road does nothing to help us. They should get the work done on time

The plaintiffs are the people challenging the waiting period. Would you prefer that the challenge be shut down before it's heard?

Cheeseman was an absolute beat down for the antis minus just a few minor things. The majority opinion even gave a roadmap to navigate the bad parts of Rahimi. I think NJ strategy is going to go up to SCOTUS and wait for Viramontes. But they will take the fight back to the district court for the remanded parts, in an attempt to limit the 2A gains for any GVRs that follow Viramontes. For Viramontes and Barnett. I don't think this changes anything procedural. Cheeseman and Barnett could get consolidated, but most everyone thinks that won't happen. I think what happens is that the narrow ruling SCOTUS was seeking to make in Viramontes is going to become a broader ruling. The circuit split pretty much demands they expand the scope from just semi-autos to semi-autos and magazines. Maybe with some good amici briefs we can get it expanded to also include parts/repairs and features like threaded barrels for flash suppressors, and the shoulder things that go up. I wonder if it would be possible to ask for cert and consolidation with Viramontes for Barnett's semi-auto and LCM ban. And then seek a separate cert for the remaining stuff like the ban on parts and features, registration, and equal protection (carve outs for law enforcement).

The ISRA has been known to post notices in the quarterly journal looking for talent. Show up and volunteer, and you will get noticed.

That exactly why the states do it, drag it out as long as possible in the hopes the other side gets bored, tired of it, or runs out of money for attorneys.

Why do the courts continually keep giving these extensions? Looks to me like it is just a stalling technique for the state so they can keep their crap enforced as long as possible. Why do the courts do that? Serious question looking for a serious answer

This post has been moved into the existing discussion.

So, it looks like I was wrong. I'm being told that the decision does apply to semi-auto long guns. I thought it was limited to just ARs, and the rest were being remanded back to the lower courts.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6504/attachments/original/1784307428/2026.07.17_125_OPINION.pdf?1784307428 I'm reading the decision. It is 11:30pm. I'll go through as much as I can and pick out what looks juicy. So far the only thing I don't like is they don't seem to apply the ruling to handguns or shotguns or other semi-auto long guns. Maybe they see handguns as settled... but oh.. looks like they sent it back down for handguns and shotguns. Why.. SMH. It looks like a huge chunk of my comments before pg 35 got clipped out somehow. I dunno why. PG 35. Here is something I think is very noteworthy. They don't rule on other semi-auto rifles only AR15s. They claim there wasn't enough record on other semi-auto rifles to include them in the ruling. This is where Barnett could come in handy because Barnett's briefs and oral arguments in the Southern District of IL covered functions and features of hundreds of different rifles for the record. PG 40. They are discussing Rahimi and why its more nuanced approach to societal concerns shouldn't apply, and why they are sticking with the 2-step test. PG 41. They reason that States would call everything an "unprecedented" concern and that would become the norm rather than the 2-step test. PG 42. They are looking at the law enforcement carve outs and showing how the bar for citizens is so high that there have been no citizens to get an exception. Sadly, they don't get into any equal protection violations. PG 44. They list examples of what constitutes lawful purposes! Second, even if they are used in crimes, they are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes. PG 45. Semi-autos and machine guns differ in meaningful ways. Even with a bump-stock, a semi-auto is not a machine gun! PG 46. They start discussing how Bruen takes the place over interest balancing. PG 47, 48. They are discussing historical analogues made by the dissenting opinions, and why they don't apply. PG 49. They say the analogues must come from the founding era. The Founding Era is where to look for founding era practices and tradition. Just my thought: Minus the limited scope of the opinion only applying to AR15 rifles, this is really looking like an absolute beat down for the antis and I'm only on page 50. PG 50-53. They take down the Bowie-knife analogues used by other circuit courts. Too much to quote. Its worth reading all of it. Very important! PG 55. They finalize societal concerns in Rahimi vs the 2nd half of the Bruen test. PG56-59 The beat-down switches to magazines as they apply step 1 of Bruen. PG 60. Magazines Step2. They begin with the law enforcement carve out and show how civilians cannot own hi-cap magazines. PG 62. Large capacity magazines are in common use. PG 63,64. They are discussing historic analogues of magazine capacity. They discuss the gunpowder storage laws were to limit damage in fires, they weren't meant to prevent violence. Second, it looks like they tried to apply Rahimi, but a nuanced approach isn't enough to overcome the lack of comparable analogues. PG 67 begins a concurring opinion for the majority. I'm too tired to continue. I think I got all the meat and most of the potatoes.

Does the federal court finding New Jerseys AW and mag ban unconstitutional effect what happens in SCOTUS next term?

On July 17, plaintiffs again asked for an extension to petition the Court.

On July 14, the Court created a docket and added the petition filed on July 10.

On July 16, MD again asked to extend the time to respond. On July 17, the Court extended the time to respond to August 17.

On July 16, Bevis filed a motion to stay the case pending a Supreme Court opinion in Viramontes.

This is big. An actual en banc circuit split. I'll relay what my lawyer friend told me: A circuit split often broadens the opinion from SCOTUS in that they issue an opinion that sets a national rule rather than a fact bound opinion. Fact bound opinions primarily focus on how the lower courts got it wrong which often leads to a narrow opinion open to a lot of interpretation by lower courts. Our briefs for both Viramontes and Barnett just became even more critical because now we can argue for a much broader opinion in Viramontes and cite the circuit split and argue that the broader restrictions within PICA need to be addressed now rather than later through a GVR. My opinion is, this is big, and the commies know it because they are crying all over social media. NJ's AG pointed out that all the other circuit courts have upheld semi-auto bans. Well they can no longer use that as one of their main arguments for upholding semi-auto bans. The liberal justices also can no longer point to the lack of a circuit split when they debate with the conservative justices. In addition, the circuit split makes it practically impossible for CT and Cook to attempt to moot the case.