Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban

[TomKoz]

On 6/30/2026 at 11:42 PM, TomKoz said:

NOTE:  

this thread was started August 28, 2021.    

 

I highly doubt our Founding Fathers would have approved of the ever slowing wheels of Justice !!

NOTE:

The initial lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's Executive Order 14160—which sought to end birthright citizenship—were filed in federal courts across the country immediately following its issuance on January 20, 2025. [1, 2]

The landmark case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Trump v. Barbara (which resulted in a landmark decision on June 30, 2026 upholding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment), was first filed in New Hampshire. [1, 2]

If you'd like to learn more about the legal landscape, I can provide details on:

The specific lower court rulings that blocked the executive order

The key arguments made by the Supreme Court in the Trump v. Barbara decision
 

HOW / WHY did the BirthRight case get settled within about 18 months BUT Viramontes case going on 60+ months?

 

2A not a second class Right much ?

[springfield shooter]

I like what Todd said in his video about being thorough with the Amici Briefs. Our side needs to dig deep into every nook and cranny. As he says, give SCOTUS a roadmap to rule to the nth degree (my term). The firearms themselves...parts and right to repair...magazines (obviously an integral part of the firearm). Whatever. Give the gun grabbers no wiggle room.

 

OK 2A groups, team work. Brief 'em to the Stone Age.

Edited July 1, 2026 at 01:59 PM by springfield shooter

[THE KING]

OK Todd, how do we get Mark Smith to write an amici brief?

I would think the more the better.  

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 7/1/2026 at 8:57 AM, springfield shooter said:

I like what Todd said in his video about being thorough with the Amici Briefs. Our side needs to dig deep into every nook and cranny. As he says, give SCOTUS a roadmap to rule to the nth degree (my term). The firearms themselves...parts and right to repair...magazines (obviously an integral part of the firearm). Whatever. Give the gun grabbers no wiggle room.

 

OK 2A groups, team work. Brief 'em to the Stone Age.

 

This is why I think we are going to see a decision come down on Barnett very soon. (Assuming that we are losing the 3 judge decision) 

The antis are going to want to muddy the waters as much as possible and get the Justices talking about Easterbrook's military test, rather than discuss the 2-step process and the additional guidance the court just gave on how to apply it to gun laws.  Their whole strategy is to get around Bruen, I don't see them abandoning that. 

 

[Howard Roark]

On 7/1/2026 at 5:38 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

This is why I think we are going to see a decision come down on Barnett very soon. (Assuming that we are losing the 3 judge decision) 

The antis are going to want to muddy the waters as much as possible and get the Justices talking about Easterbrook's military test, rather than discuss the 2-step process and the additional guidance the court just gave on how to apply it to gun laws.  Their whole strategy is to get around Bruen, I don't see them abandoning that. 

 

 

Easterturd's infirm and swiss-cheese-like military test is so far from the "dangerous and unusual" test articulated in Heller that SCOTUS would likely have to overrule Heller to embrace it.  Easterturd's test empowers judges who know little to nothing about guns to decide that US Army Colt Single Action revolvers were military issue and thus can be banned. Muskets could be banned. Easterturd's method is pure trickery and so dishonest that almost everybody except him can see it. Knowledgeable lawyers say Easterturd thinks he is brilliant. He is not.  

[lilguy]

So they need 4 votes to hear a case. All conjecture on who voted and why. 50/50 

which way it goes. Maybe states right to control at some level. Remember Scalia

said some regulation is allowable. It doesn’t not matter what we think. Are there 5 votes for opening the flood gates to these arms again, I don’t know. If they say ARs can be controlled then there’s nothing to stop it speading like wildfire.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Edited July 2, 2026 at 04:30 PM by lilguy

[ealcala31]

On 7/2/2026 at 11:02 AM, lilguy said:

So they need 4 votes to hear a case. All conjecture on who voted and why. 50/50 

which way it goes. Maybe states right to control at some level. Remember Scalia

said some regulation is allowable. It doesn’t not matter what we think. Are there 5 votes for opening the flood gates to these arms again, I don’t know. If they say ARs can be controlled then there’s nothing to stop it speading like wildfire.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Didn't think CNN could be that FAIR.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 7/1/2026 at 7:12 PM, Howard Roark said:

 

Easterturd's infirm and swiss-cheese-like military test is so far from the "dangerous and unusual" test articulated in Heller that SCOTUS would likely have to overrule Heller to embrace it.  Easterturd's test empowers judges who know little to nothing about guns to decide that US Army Colt Single Action revolvers were military issue and thus can be banned. Muskets could be banned. Easterturd's method is pure trickery and so dishonest that almost everybody except him can see it. Knowledgeable lawyers say Easterturd thinks he is brilliant. He is not.  

 

Attempting an end-around run on Bruen, and or some new type of interest balancing, is all they have if they don't want to quote black codes to the Justices.  Frankly, I'd love it if they try that with Justice Thomas. 

[stockboyy]

By now Easterbrook has to realize he is NOT driving the Buss.
 At best he is ONLY a Rude Back Seat heckler in a black robe.

[springfield shooter]

On 7/2/2026 at 9:51 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

 

Attempting an end-around run on Bruen, and or some new type of interest balancing, is all they have if they don't want to quote black codes to the Justices.  Frankly, I'd love it if they try that with Justice Thomas. 

 

It should be especially interesting to watch them trying to sell the Court on the idea that Bruen doesn't mean what the majority actually (plainly) wrote it to mean.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

[cybermgk]

Easterbrook ruling in favor of the 2A (while actually following aspects of SCOTUS rulings).  Not sure, if this indicates one way or another on a Barnett ruling.  He does have a huge ego.  He might just see which way SCOTUS is going, and that the Viramontes will soon be overturned, and not want to risk that happening to HIS decision, or have it remanded back, on Barnett.

 

 

[EdDinIL]

Minor update:

 

 

 

[Euler]

Regarding "this request," it refers to:

On July 14, Viramontes filed a joint motion to extend the briefing schedule for the case.

On July 15, the Court granted the motion and set the following schedule:

08/28: petitioners' briefs due
10/21: respondents' briefs due

FYI: Oral arguments were probably always going to be in December, anyway. The Court starts hearing arguments in October. It hears about 8-10 cases per month. Viramontes was the 22nd petition granted for fall arguments. You can do the math.

[EdDinIL]

On 7/15/2026 at 1:59 PM, Euler said:

FYI: Oral arguments were probably always going to be in December, anyway. The Court starts hearing arguments in October. It hears about 8-10 cases per month. Viramontes was the 22nd petition granted for fall arguments. You can do the math.

Kostas replied to his own tweet with this bit of snark:

 

In terms of the ruling, the date wont change much. Whether this were argued November 1st or January 30th, the ruling will be last week of June lol.