MrTriple

What I don't understand (and this goes for the entire gun control movement, not just Illinois) is why they'd attempt a ban that is suspect under Bruen and at risk of being overturned. I get that there's a certain calculus to what they're doing, but aren't there folks on their side giving them an honest, unbiased take on things? If I'm a legislator, I'm gonna want to hear from someone who's gonna give me the unvarnished truth about my bills. How likely are we to get sued? What's our realistic chance of winning in court? I'm not gonna pick a fight I can't win, especially if it establishes a negative precedent for my side.

I noticed that they mentioned how this burdens their ability to travel. They should really lean into that particular point: For many Chicagoans, public transit is their primary, or in some cases, only means of transport. I hope they really keep pushing that particular point.

But have we seen this before in a 2A case? This request seemed a bit out of the blue, and perhaps a bit naive if anyone honestly believes Cook County would ever settle.

I was thinking about this yesterday: Why ask the parties to settle when neither party would agree to it? It makes me wonder if the judge knows the AWB is unconstitutional, really doesn't want to strike it down, and is hoping beyond hope that there's another way. There isn't, of course, and she's gonna have to do her job. But that's my take on the situation.

Precisely, especially considering that the plaintiffs will simply keep suing until the courts declare the entire ban unconstitutional.

I'm curious how that would work, as Cook County will never agree to repeal the ban, and the plaintiffs will simply appeal to the appellate courts.

I'm thinking they won't fold. I got the impression that Remington did because of their financial problems, whereas Smith and Wesson has every incentive to win this.

I don't think it's inevitable. Any state-level ban will get struck down by the courts, which'll have the effect of nullifying the local AWBs in places like Cook County and Highland Park. The best approach is to do nothing, if for no reason other than to preserve the municipal bans. What they may do is remove preemption so the suburban soccer moms can ban "assault weapons" in their towns while helping the state to avoid a wider legal entanglement. It also has the "benefit" (in their minds) in tying up the resources of the gun rights groups, who'll have to file multiple identical lawsuits.

They think they're being clever, but this'll just result in federal legislation prohibiting this behavior. We're probably going to see future legislation over tech company censorship, so it wouldn't surprise me to see something similar in regards to payment processing services; it's basically the same issue but manifested in another way. It also reeks of desperation. If they don't think can get legislation passed, they figure this'll be a suitable alternative.

Correct, intermediate scrutiny is no longer permitted. While I can't comment on this particular case, it wouldn't surprise me if we see more states and municipalities doing the same in order to avoid a court challenge.

I'm gonna get chewed out for saying this, but I think people are overreacting. First, this is really just an extension of the moral panic that gave us DEI and ESG. Sooner or later, all moral panics collapse in on themselves. Second, this is the sorta thing that sounds great in the boardroom until the lawsuits start flying. And when that happens (and it will) the CEO will begin asking who's bright idea it was in the first place. And let's not kid ourselves: Any attempt to begin flagging gun owners would have every attorney in the country lining up to take these sort of lawsuits. And as far as law enforcement is concerned? Same scenario: Lawsuits. Lots and lots of lawsuits. Does the Something-something-ville Police Department really have the resources to defend their actions in court should they act on a report from Mastercard?

The concept of victim's rights will probably be the avenue through which cashless bail gets struck down by the courts.

I don't know if they are simply ignorant or something else. Cook County and Highland Park are already getting sued over their AWBs, do they honestly think they'll prevail in the long run? What do they think state-level action will do except result in a major court loss? "President and CEO Kathleen Sances said Friday there is a public outcry to pass those initiatives as soon as possible." Only amongst the soccer mom crowd. Not exactly representative of the nation as a whole, but whatever makes them feel better I guess. "Sances said G-PAC plans to launch a new outreach program alongside a statewide coalition of 200 organizations within the next few weeks to get more public support for an assault weapons ban." And when has that ever succeeded? People are tired of being lectured by soccer moms over what they can and can't do.

Senate polling has been utter trash since 2014 and has shown no signs of improvement. Also remember that summer polling is even worse and downright wish casting at times.

Some schools don't even teach cursive anymore. "Please sign on the dotted line, sir." "Uh, sign? Like, what does that mean?"