Jump to content

cbunt32

Members
  • Posts

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

329 profile views

cbunt32's Achievements

Member

Member (2/24)

  1. Maybe it was low expectations but I was pleasantly surprised by the questions asked. Definitely sounded like they were inclined to remand.
  2. Looks like the case was remanded. Is it normal to take that long just to remand the case? https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5472/attachments/original/1687275184/Atkinson_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf?1687275184
  3. I missed everything but the first and last couple minutes. How'd it go overall?
  4. I thought the same thing. Regardless all of them can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds so, no, we can't carry the magazines police do.
  5. Agreed. Now if we don't see the same thing when the state presents their case, I'll be worried.
  6. How about the argument that killing someone with a pistol or shotgun can be self defense but if you kill them with an AR15 that's just using more force than is necessary and there is no claim to self defense.
  7. They said the phrase "M-16 rifles and the like" so many times it made me read Heller again. It reads to me that SCOTUS was pointing out how silly the argument is that the 2nd amendment only applied to use in a militia but also weapons most useful in military service (M-16 rifles and the like) can be banned. In other words, weapons of war is exactly what the 2nd amendment protects.
  8. I continue to have this feeling that the Naperville case is going to screw this whole thing up. Yes, it's just the preliminary injunction at this point but without that this litigation will take years.
  9. Yes, and I hate to say it but a stay on the circuit court cases makes sense. Why waste a circuit court judges time when the issue is at the appellate court level. Hopefully the judge at least recognizes the FFL case is different enough to let it go forward. But...the state also has not asked for a stay yet so maybe we are worrying over nothing. I suspect we'll know more tomorrow.
  10. They could have just not appealed the decision on the preliminary injunction and let the other cases catch up. But, no, they want to be first
  11. Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it seems like this is more of a status hearing to make sure everyone is on the same page. I can’t imagine the judge would rule on a TRO when the state hasn’t responded to the motion yet. The judge extended that to march
×
×
  • Create New...