MrTriple

I think it's more than that. From any honest perspective the FOID Act is unconstitutional, but they don't want to strike it down, and under no circumstance will they do so unless a higher court steps in (or the issue is decided by the Seventh Circuit). Striking down Cook County's AWB, for example, is one thing. Getting rid of the FOID would be an entirely different matter altogether, and one that would prove to be an even bigger loss for the gun control movement than any one county-level AWB.

A part of me wonders if any AWB case will make it to the Supreme Court without a lower court striking it down first. I would think that the GVR of Bianchi would be taken as a clear indication of the Court's thinking, and many judges won't want to issue a ruling they know SCOTUS would strike down on appeal. For judges who want to "minimize the damage caused by Bruen," the strategic thing to do is strike the law down and leave it at that. I guarantee that the gun control movement now wishes that the lower courts had struck New York's good cause requirement in the first instance.

Looks like we're getting movement on this case. First link is the original call for briefs, second and third links are the plaintiff's briefs and the state's briefs, respectively. Unsurprisingly, the state is trying to delay.

Looks like the official GVR from SCOTUS dropped yesterday. I guess the order list from July was merely a list, and this is the official order? Perhaps someone can clarify that point. Oral arguments tentatively scheduled for December 6-9. Supplemental brief due August 22nd; supplemental response brief due September 12th; supplemental reply brief permitted by September 22nd.

This was the AWB case originally heard by Judge Benitez, who struck the ban down. The 9th Circuit has vacated the case and remanded it back to the lower court, which means he'll be hearing the case again. I personally believe he'll rule the same way he did the first time, incorporating whatever changes are necessary to comply with Bruen. Seems like a stall tactic on the 9th Circuit's part, but not an unforeseen outcome.

Even those Republican senators who are retiring won't want to cross over for this. That was the whole purpose of the other bill, which was to vote for something completely watered-down and pointless, while still getting some credit for "doing something". This ban goes too far for the sole purpose of a show vote.

It certainly doesn't help them. Gun control has become a huge political liability, which might explain why you see so many politicians willing to showboat on gun control, but not necessarily willing to pass anything far-reaching. The idea is to placate the shrinking number of very outspoken and very pushy advocates while not doing anything that could damage their rapport with independents. The previous bill that passed, while I (and probably everyone here) opposed it, perhaps made sense politically because it allowed them to say, "we did something," even if it was meaningless in actual fact. But this just angers independents and energizes Republicans while delivering absolutely nothing tangible for their own base. Part of the calculus, I think, was that they'd already made a big scene with their hearings, and a failure to follow up with something big would've been just as embarrassing and politically damaging. They essentially painted themselves into a corner.

I agree. The other question is how closely his staff are watching these 2nd amendment cases nationwide. They want stricter laws, but not ones that'll get struck down by the courts. I don't like Pritzker, he's been a disaster for the state, but he isn't stupid. He's probably smart enough to realize that the legal environment isn't amenable to gun control.

Text, Tradition, and History.

I was actually thinking the exact opposite, that these judges won't want to bother trying to debate the issue and simply want these cases closed and done. The idea being that it's easier for them to simply strike the laws down and call it a day.

Another thing: Part of this is confused desperation. They want to enact something, but don't understand that the law isn't on their side. Now combine that with an understandable outrage over Highland Park and a desire to do something about it, and you get insane policies that, if enacted, will get struck down by the courts. Nothing about what they're doing is based on logic. It's pure emotion.

There's also the Bianchi case in Maryland which was GVR'ed by SCOTUS. IMO, expect action on that case before the end of the year. We also have the Viramontes case in Cook County, which might get a hearing before the end of the year. New filings are gonna be due either by the middle of August or September depending on what the judge says. Cook is pushing for a September date, but the plaintiff's counsel wants an August date. But Bianchi is critical. If the Fourth Circuit moves to strike Maryland's AWB, I strongly believe that other circuits will take that as a sign from SCOTUS.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the gun control movement is very angry and confused right now. A lot of this is just them acting out, which includes them saying things they otherwise wouldn't. Plus, the momentum's gonna keep dropping. How much willpower will they have in two month's time?

Do they even have the votes? On paper, maybe. But is this politically expedient in an election year? Plus, the momentum will be gone by September. I mean, the momentum's already dropped.

I have an old milsurp that needs to be inspected, but I need more than just a normal, run of the mill gunsmith. I need someone who actually understands these old rifles, their history, their quirks, what to look for, etc. Does anyone have any suggestions on who I could call?