MrTriple

I believe it's a vestigial remnant of the original draft of the NFA, which included pistols until they were removed. As such, the language that passed is a ghost of the draft, which had the effect of creating unusual and unfortunate side effects.

https://youtu.be/UEnV19lvgok?si=jYlbcURUfdnDAdC_ Video from Todd re: Snope and how it impacts Illinois

Also remember that Barnett is a more well-rounded case addressing the guns, the magazines, and registration in a single package, along with the right to repair stuff. It's a better case than Snope.

This was always going to be the way forward. Absolutely unacceptable that it took this long.

Honestly if I were a judge I'd be rejecting all of these motions for an extension and simply keep to the original schedule. If the government can't get it's act together that's their own problem, not mine.

Ideally, you'd need the bill to explicitly outlaw permit requirements to carry, which would be difficult to achieve with the current makeup of Congress, but that's definitely a good goal to have. However, you could structure the bill to clearly favor permitless carry, and allow individuals from permitless carry states to carry on only a driver's license or ID as opposed to being forced to get a permit when they visit states that still mandate the permit.

If they take the case this year, will they have time to schedule it for a hearing before summer, or will it be pushed out to the 2025-2026 term? Or does it simply depend on their own personal preference?

It's a lack of energy and a general sense of exhaustion. You can see it in how they act: They're still putting on a brave face and yelling "resist!" but the spark and energy just isn't there anymore. They're just going through the motions. As far as they're concerned, Biden winning in 2020 was supposed to be the end of the Trump era. That was supposed to be the return to The Before Times, when they were still dominant. His win shattered a lot of hopes and dreams on the left.

This should be disqualifying for anyone. It's one thing to accidentally run over somebody's pet when there was no way to avoid it, but this is just sadistic and frankly evil. What I don't get is why this wasn't known ahead of time, although I suspect some knew but hoped that it wouldn't come to light should he win the election. That's still a dumb strategy, since anyone in such a position shouldn't bother running in the first place. And if it wasn't known, it begs the question of whether they bothered doing any background investigations on the candidates prior to the vote.

I could take this to be either good or bad news depending on how one reads it. What does this mean in terms of McGlynn's final judgment?

Hmm, I thought it had been removed to federal. That being said, I still don't understand why they're filing in state court when that's never gonna pan out. The strategy, if there even is one, isn't a smart strategy at all.

Was this removed to State court?

Good to hear! I also find the concise but firm language refreshing.

Please permit me to throw one more thing out there before we move on: We shouldn't forget the herd effect. Oftentimes, support or opposition for a particular issue is solely driven by people who aren't die hards one way or another, but who go with the flow of what's considered socially acceptable at the moment. For them, a big announcement of some sort can drastically alter the perception of what's acceptable in such a way that it leads to wild shifts for or against something, and can blunt the impact of the die hards on one side of an issue or another. Sure, the die hard supporters of gun control might not give up that easily, but they only represent a fraction of the voting public. They still need the support of those who merely back them out of a sense of keeping up appearances. For those folks, they're gonna see "SCOTUS Strikes "assault weapon" Ban" in the newspaper and think, "Huh, guess that's that" without an afterthought. For them, a ban is now a bad thing, and not necessarily because they care one way or another, but because they aren't deep into the weeds and/or don't really care beyond maintaining socially-acceptable opinions. What was the level of support for a handgun ban, last time somebody polled the question? How much of that is due to this herd effect shifting perceptions of acceptability?

I mean, it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility. From the footnote on Page 30 of Bruen: "That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry." They didn't say this without good reason.