https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/discover/IllinoisCarry.com - All Activityenhey Euler, can you give me a call or drop me an email?Fri, 07 Aug 2026 16:22:30 +0000For reference, 90 days from July 9 is October 7.Fri, 07 Aug 2026 07:08:23 +0000On August 6, NYC waived its right to respond.Fri, 07 Aug 2026 07:03:43 +0000Video has a lot of good info. Thanks for posting.Thu, 06 Aug 2026 18:00:41 +0000Terrific news.Thu, 06 Aug 2026 13:28:51 +0000Gun rights groups move to block new California Glock ban in federal court A coalition of gun rights organizations filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court on Wednesday to halt the enforcement of California’s newly expanded handgun restrictions. The legal filing was submitted as part of Renna v. Bonta, an existing federal lawsuit challenging California’s firearm regulations. The lawsuit was recently updated to target Assembly Bill 1127, a measure passed by state lawmakers last October that expanded the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act. Under the provisions that took effect on July 1, 2026, licensed firearms dealers in California are barred from selling, offering, exchanging, giving, transferring, or delivering any pistol classified by the state as a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” The legislation specifically defines this category to include handguns built with a cruciform trigger bar. That design mechanism is a core component in virtually all Glock models and similar firearms, which represent some of the most widely owned handguns in the United States.Thu, 06 Aug 2026 04:10:30 +0000On June 8, 2026, Jensen v ATF (6:26-cv-227, ND Texas) was indeed consolidated into Silencer Shop v ATF (6:25-cv-56, ND Texas), with Silencer Shop v ATF as the lead case. (docket) It might be worth changing the topic title, although the caption can change at the appellate level, too. ATF may not appeal, but Baltimore (MD), Columbus (OH), and Harris County (Houston, TX) intervened as defendants, so maybe they will if ATF doesn't.Thu, 06 Aug 2026 03:56:44 +0000From the Opinion: "Remedy-wise, the plaintiffs in both cases are entitled to a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged NFA provisions against them, their members, and their customers. But that is as far as it goes. Federal courts lack power to issue universal injunctions that provide relief to parties not before the Court. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). The Court’s remedy is limited in other respects, too. The Jensen plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the NFA’s regulation of “any other weapon”—the final, defined group of miscellaneous firearms—because they did not establish as much from the start of the case. The Court also declines to issue the requested declaratory judgments because they would provide no further relief. But to be clear: The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional.1 Congress’s choice to eliminate the transfer and making taxes matters, and the defendants cannot save the NFA’s regulatory scheme by referring to a power that Congress never invoked. Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court."Thu, 06 Aug 2026 02:07:14 +0000Thu, 06 Aug 2026 01:57:42 +0000I may be incorrect, but it appears as if this case was rolled up with Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF and other complaints as well: Silencer-Shop-Foundation-v.-ATF-Opinion-and-Order.pdf Edit: the NRA-ILA says that the Silencer Shop Foundation and Jensen cases were consolidated: NRA-ILA | Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA CaseThu, 06 Aug 2026 01:48:51 +0000A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled that the remaining registration scheme for short-barreled rifles and suppressors in the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional in Jensen v. ATF, a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase certain classes of firearms, including silencers and short-barreled rifles, to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), purportedly drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated but the registration requirement was left in place. SAF and its partners have filed three lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power is no longer justifiable. JUDGE: SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE, SUPPRESSOR NFA REGISTRATION SCHEME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Second Amendment FoundationThu, 06 Aug 2026 01:41:24 +0000This is exciting! Our best wishes to Stephen!Wed, 05 Aug 2026 17:01:46 +0000Given the outcome of the En Banc ruling, there's no need to GVR this case. They will just deny cert. They may choose to hold it until they release the Viramontes ruling, but they might not.Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:50:35 +0000we have 90 days from judgement, July 9th to file cert petition. our bet is it will be held in limbo pending Viramontes/Grant. Which we think will be argued Dec/Jan and then decided sometime after the 23rd of June. From there, most likely a GVR based upon Viramontes. Maybe hopefully with a per curium opinionWed, 05 Aug 2026 13:27:44 +0000What is the process from there? Do they hold arguments from both parties or just submit briefings before a ruling is made?Wed, 05 Aug 2026 11:27:39 +0000Although the 2nd Circuit knocked down NY's vampire rule, the other provision challenged in this case is a ban of carry in public parks. On July 28, Christian asked to extend the deadline to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari on the ban of carry in public parks. (shadow docket) On July 29, Sotomayor extended the deadline to September 16.Wed, 05 Aug 2026 02:51:09 +0000The commies have until the middle of October to seek cert. If they seek cert then the ban stays in effect unless cert is denied. If cert is granted the ban stays in effect until SCOTUS makes a ruling on the case. Well, SCOTUS isn't going to do that. They will most likely GVR it after Viramontes. Then it will bounce around another year or more. Even when we win, we lose. 4BD guy said this is a good thing. I can't disagree more.Tue, 04 Aug 2026 21:53:51 +0000Sorry. My badTue, 04 Aug 2026 21:05:08 +0000I've update the first post and updated the "Rebuttals" section to include the weapons dealer response. https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/79597-online-ammunition-sellers-who-will-ship-to-chicago/ If there are any other excuses or reasons that retailers use, please post them. I'll post rebuttal material for reference.Tue, 04 Aug 2026 19:49:28 +0000Hi Nod, thank you for the suggestion. I search "Precision Ammo" and the search results came up with https://precisiononeammunition.com. I am assuming this is the retailer you are referring. I contacted them and they said they do not ship to Chicago. Also, their website specifically states they do not ship to Cook County, Illinois. https://precisiononeammunition.com/shipping-returns/ I added Precision Ammunition to Lost Causes.Tue, 04 Aug 2026 16:35:41 +0000Didn't read the whole thread, but Foster Care, is much the same. Now, it is your house, and your child, but you can't have loaded firearm? There was some law proposed, that was mostly negative, but, it said that a lawful CCL holder, with a firearm on their person, is considered, properly stored or locked up. I dunno where that went, but makes sense to me. I want a gunfighter with my grands.Tue, 04 Aug 2026 15:40:43 +0000Or homes that school-aged children might visit…. Gotta get them grandparents and neighbors….Tue, 04 Aug 2026 15:31:44 +0000Illinois: "Can we pass a bill making homes with school-aged children sensitive places?"Tue, 04 Aug 2026 15:04:27 +0000Tyranny achieved.Tue, 04 Aug 2026 15:00:12 +0000glad I could provide you with come entertainment EulerTue, 04 Aug 2026 14:33:58 +0000