Silhouette

Scotus declined to intervene. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/court-rejects-request-to-temporarily-block-illinois-assault-weapon-bans/

Thank you very much, Euler, for typing up this synopsis of the hearing!

It sounds like this court responsibly felt that its hands were tied by the higher court. At least they didn't waste inordinate amounts of time getting to this point. Good luck at the next court getting the precedent overturned!!

Facts are determined by a jury and an evidence record, but matters of law get de novo review. Text, history, and tradition are not facts of the case but rather matters of law. They would have the opportunity to argue any such legal analysis by the judge at the next step.

It may also be a bit that the state feels that they have a losing hand in this courtroom or at this time, and if the judge asserts tradition then they have the ability to make different arguments on appeal. If the state's lawyers analyze the historic record, they don't have the freedom to change tactics on appeal when it may be more clear what their best argument may be. That said, as the landscape now appears, they will not be likely to gain ground on appeal.

Here is a link to the docket of the Viramontes v. Cook County case mentioned above: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60319877/viramontes-v-the-county-of-cook/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc There is a separate thread on the Viramontes case, but given that the cases may be combined, posting this here doesn't seem wrong.

This is a very nicely written and well-considered response from the court. I hope that the seventh circuit will find many of these arguments compelling when they next consider Illinois's lengthy list of sensitive places. I imagine that it will be very hard for New York to prevail in this case.

This case was GVR-ed today and returned to the 1st circuit for a decision in line with NYSRPA vs Bruen.

As I understand it, New York State law dictates the conditions for issuance of a carry permit and all permit applications go through local county officials, but NYC doesn't issue carry licenses under authority outside that delegated to it by state law (so Bruen applies even though NYC wasn't named in the suit). Of course, a writ of mandamus could be needed for them to move on said application. Permits to purchase/possess are different and those are issued under a city ordinance. This is one of the few places with laws more convoluted than Illinois. I sincerely hope that "sensitive places" and "good moral character" are reviewed by the courts in a timely fashion. Thumbing your nose at SCOTUS is an ill-advised game.

This move by the ninth makes sense (whether I like it or not). Bruen has created a nominally new test (or clearly laid out the test for all parties and the courts) focusing on text, history and tradition. The district courts are the finders of facts, and both sides should be able to focus their arguments on the text, history and tradition such that matters of law can be handled upon appeal. Sadly, this does reset the clock for justice, but I am optimistic that the district court will rule for Young.

Echoing what was said above by TexasGrillChef and Euler, the 9th Circuit has allowed an extension of time to file for a rehearing or en banc hearing until July 25 explicitly acknowledging the potential impact of NYSRPA. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5345/attachments/original/1652791876/Jones_v_Bonta_Joint_Motion_for_Extension.pdf?1652791876

Yes, the ban on the purchase of handguns out of state baffles me but isn't obviously unconstitutional. Based on this case, Heller and Mcdonald, I specifically have trouble seeing how the sale of pistols to adults under 21 can stand at least in the ninth.

I have included an AP wire article below with a detailed summary, but in short the Firearms Policy Coalition sued CA over its ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons to citizens under 21. A panel in the 9th circuit voted 2 to 1 that this age-based ban was unconstitutional. This case may be appealed en banc. If the case stands, it may be influential (but not binding) on the 7th circuit. In particular, I could see this case being relevant to questions on whether the second amendment demands CCLs be issued at age 18 in Illinois (assuming that SCOTUS finds that the plain language of the second amendment involves bearing arms). It may also have bearing on handgun sales from FFLs to citizens under 21 if such a case arises again. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/jones https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-05-11/court-californias-under-21-gun-sales-ban-unconstitutional

G&G has a nice analysis of SCOTUS process there. One thing missing from the analysis is mention of dissents. Cases with significant dissenting opinions that are designed to gain support from other justices or are intended to introduce competing legal theories typically are released much later as these dissenting opinions take a great deal of time. The suggestion that this opinion will be written by Thomas is solid analysis.

The petition for a rehearing at the IL Supreme Court has been denied. https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/6d09d89a-be51-4656-9e1e-f19393bb8b0e/file