springfield shooter

We need to understand that there are those of the "political class" that would like precisely that.

Bush V. Gore was decided 12/12/2000, less than four weeks before the Electoral College was to meet.

IIRC, the time before counting and certifying the Electoral College vote was pretty short in that case.

Given their obvious....and vigorous....efforts to combat crime in the Chicago/Cook area, we can be certain that harassing law abiding gun owners is the last thing on the Democrats' minds.

Hard to see the 7th Circuit using a state precedent that clearly (per the state court itself) doesn't touch on the 2A issues. Not saying the state wouldn't try, of course.

Because he wanted to challenge the state on the way it does it's legislative business....correct?

If advances in firearms aren't protected by the 2A (and of course they are), then advances in media technology aren't protected by the 1A. And that is a ridiculous proposition.

I couldn't agree more.

Yeah. That'd work great where I live.

Well, however long it takes this to play out, we can be sure that the folks shooting up Chicago will be in full compliance.

Do county judges issue warrants for the individual counties they serve in?

Thanks.

Donation/ticket links don't seem to be working.

As I understand it, the arguments the state is making here are irrelevant to the standard set in Bruen. AND....click on the "Read 70 replies". Some pretty entertaining stuff there.

Why? Because IL is not about responsible legal firearms ownership. And it is certainly not about the Constitution of The United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And apparently, that appears to go for some Federal judges too.

Nominated by Reagan, Trump, and Trump.

"Possession and popularity do not establish common use." Then, pray tell, what DO they establish? Several million people have them, but no one uses them, doesn't sound like a rational argument.

Pretty sure you can add Jon Tester (D-MT) to that list. In 2020, Trump won MT by over 16 pts.

The conservatives on the Court didn't bend when the pro-abortion thugs started threatening them in their homes....and in Coney Barrett's case, doxxing her children. I don't think they are going to bend now. When Senator Durbin tried to get CJ Roberts to appear (supposedly) concerning SCOTUS ethics, the Chief Justice sent him a letter basically saying the Court handles it's own ethics issues. Said letter being signed by all nine members of the Court. IOW, "Stay in your own lane senator. We are a co-equal branch of the government."

Doesn't say much for any of them but McGlynn, does it?

My two cents: If the conservative justices didn't back off on the abortion ruling, they won't on the 2A.

Thanks.

Is the stay issue by a three judge panel? Or does it take just one judge?

"This is an extraordinary move and one that displays that the State believes it is above the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? This state believes that it's above the Constitution of the United States.

Perhaps Judge McGlynn will write the state a nice, thorough denial that it can show to the 7th Circuit.