mauserme

Dooley being the judge the case was was assigned to.

Glock is challenging Connecticut's ban on "convertible pistols", calling the statute vague and ambiguous. https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Glock-v-Griffin-complaint.pdf Glock-v-Griffin-complaint.pdf

This is possibly a step toward challenging laws in states that don't voluntarily comform.

Two slightly different takes: https://www.oakpark.com/2026/09/15/hold-the-firearm-industry-accountable/ https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/illinois-bill-would-require-gun-manufacturers-help-pay-gun-violence-costs

It's no secret that antigun groups and antigun politicians share their ideas. The Illinois and Washington bills are pretty old though and, in Illinois, it hasn't gained any traction. It doesn't look like Washington is moving theirs in the near future, either. Maybe New York? I'm not so sure about that.

The ruling did strike down the Hawaii law and, by extension, others like it that required permission to carry. It didn't really affect Illinois since our carry law doesn't require permission, although it hopefully will keep Illinois from considering such a law. Legislation similar to Hawaii's has been proposed here but has never becmone law.

Well, the short answer is yes lol.

The Obama Administration sought to require people selling only a small number of firearms per year to become an FFL, thereby increasing the number of licensees which would lead to more background checks. The Biden Administration enacted a zero tolerance policy toward retail FFL record keeping. This did put some dealers out of business, but it's not as if they were dropping like flies. As Todd posted, the biggest impact in Illinois was the state's Dealer Licensing law.

Which is still not how the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act reads. The interpretation you posted exactly inverts the intent to require an affirmative denial of the right to carry in order for it to be a violation.

Supporting Team members can edit without any time limits.

How would they cut back? C&R issuance is not discretionary.

State law is sometimes written as a reference to federal law as a way to mirror changes made at the federal level, without having to amend it at the state level every time a change occurs. So, for example, if Illinois wanted to codify it's definition of the US flag in a way that automatically accommodates the addition of new states, it could cite 61 Stat. 642 as amended, as being the state's definition. Then, any time a star is added, we would recognize the change.

States attorneys don't enforce federal law, but I think you already knew that. And changing federal administrations does not change court cases already decided. I think you should first, accept the fact that this is one small aspect of a rapidly collapsing system of gun control designed to act against ownership/possession by the law abiding and, second, move along now as your attempts to subvert our rights are unwelcome.

If you you step back a bit to view your posts from others' perspective, you might see how natural it is to form that opinion about them. Please note that you are essentially arguing against the US Attorney General's opinion, and advice to avoid enforcement, not merely "the word of someone on the internet".

Thanks for posting those. We're trying to limit this list to FFLs that are also IllinoisCarry members. If either of the shops you posted are you, please add your address, phone number, etc.