Atkinson v Blanche (Bondi/Garland/Rosen) - Lifetime 2A prohibition

[Euler]

Diane S. Sykes, Chief Judge; Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judge, dissenting, and Michael Y. Scudder, Circuit Judge.

 

... so 2-1

 

EDIT: District case docket

 

Edited June 20, 2023 at 09:18 PM by Euler

[Matt B]

The ISRA was happy with the order, which surprises me as it seems like a clear punt with the intention of running out the clock on this Supreme Court. Especially when we had hoped for a favorable ruling in the 7th that could influence the gun ban cases. Yeah it’s better than an unfavorable decision but doesn’t feel like a win here.

 

 

“The ISRA is pleased with today's ruling by the US 7th Circuit in Atkinson v Garland. The 7th Circuit has remanded the case back to the lower courts to be considered under the recent Bruen decision. This case challenges the ban on firearms possession by persons convicted of a non violent felony who pose no danger to society. The plaintiff has a 25 year old mail fraud conviction, and had clearly paid his debt to society. The court ruled that historical context might exist for rehabilitated citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights when considered under the Bruen decision, therefore the lower courts must reconsider this case. This continues a modern pattern of analyzing restorative justice and its effect on the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens. The ISRA is proud to be a supporter of this important case, and hope it leads to more individuals having their rights restored after having paid their debts to society. “

[MrTriple]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:50 PM, Matt B said:

The ISRA was happy with the order, which surprises me as it seems like a clear punt with the intention of running out the clock on this Supreme Court. Especially when we had hoped for a favorable ruling in the 7th that could influence the gun ban cases. Yeah it’s better than an unfavorable decision but doesn’t feel like a win here.

 

 

“The ISRA is pleased with today's ruling by the US 7th Circuit in Atkinson v Garland. The 7th Circuit has remanded the case back to the lower courts to be considered under the recent Bruen decision. This case challenges the ban on firearms possession by persons convicted of a non violent felony who pose no danger to society. The plaintiff has a 25 year old mail fraud conviction, and had clearly paid his debt to society. The court ruled that historical context might exist for rehabilitated citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights when considered under the Bruen decision, therefore the lower courts must reconsider this case. This continues a modern pattern of analyzing restorative justice and its effect on the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens. The ISRA is proud to be a supporter of this important case, and hope it leads to more individuals having their rights restored after having paid their debts to society. “

I wonder if this was more an attempt by Sykes to retain Scudder, similar to what Scalia had to do to retain Kennedy in Heller.

[Matt B]

Todd seems more upbeat about this development than I am so I’ll temper my disappointment to some degree. Looking forward to more analysis later.

[Tvandermyde]

ISRA hired a PR firm sometime ago, that may explain the press release

 

[Tvandermyde]

 

 

i will do another round on the dissent and do the good parts after that

[Tvandermyde]

 

[Tvandermyde]

 

[Matt B]

I’m convinced now the motions panel will be hearing this case and that Easterbrook and Woods are going to force us up to scotus on a loss.

Edited June 25, 2023 at 05:30 PM by Matt B

[yurimodin]

On 6/25/2023 at 12:26 PM, Matt B said:

I’m convinced now the motions panel will be hearing this case and that Easterbrook and Woods are going to force us up to scotus on a loss.

The silver lining in that will be that IL is where frivolous AWB's finally went to die. They overplayed their hands, this isn't NY or CA. We are 100 counties of corn fields and good people being pulled down by 2 blue festering s***holes.

[Euler]

On August 14, the district court "received" the CA7 decision overturning the district decision (the one from June 20).

On August 16, the district court set a hearing date for August 23 "to discuss [the] next steps."

[Euler]

On August 23, the judge set the following schedule:

October 9: amended complaint due
November 13: response due
November 28: status hearing

[Euler]

On October 9, the plaintiffs filed the amended complaint.

[Euler]

On November 2, the government moved to stay this case pending the outcomes of Rahimi and Range.

[Euler]

On November 7, 2023 at 09:42 PM CST, Euler said:→

On November 2, the government moved to stay this case pending the outcomes of Rahimi and Range.

On November 15, the judge granted the order to stay.

[Euler]

On May 1, the judge lifted the stay pending the outcomes of Rahimi and Range with the following schedule.

5/22: defendants' response to complaint due
6/20: plaintiffs' reply due

On May 17, the defendants moved again to stay this case pending the outcome of Rahimi and asked, if the judge would not grant the stay, to extend the schedule as follows.

6/24: defendants' response to complaint due
8/5: plaintiffs' reply due

Comment: the proposed schedule almost surely places the due dates after the Supreme Court would announce its ruling on Rahimi.

[Euler]

On May 17, 2024 at 11:25 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On May 17, the defendants moved again to stay this case pending the outcome of Rahimi and asked, if the judge would not grant the stay, to extend the schedule as follows.

6/24: defendants' response to complaint due
8/5: plaintiffs' reply due
...

On May 21, the judge extended the schedule as follows:

7/15: defendants' response to complaint due
8/05: plaintiffs' reply due, if the defendants' response is a motion to dismiss
8/19: plaintiffs' reply due, if the defendants' response is not a motion to dismiss

[Euler]

On August 5, the plaintiff filed a motion for an extension.

On August 6, the judge granted the extension and set the following schedule:

8/14: motion hearing

if plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint
8/26: amended complaint due
defendants have 21 days from actual filing to respond or to move to dismiss

if plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint
9/3: plaintiffs' response to motion to dismiss due
9/16: defendants' reply due

[Euler]

On August 8, 2024 at 08:52 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
9/3: plaintiffs' response to motion to dismiss due
9/16: defendants' reply due

On September 3, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to file a response and asked to present the motion to the court on September 11.

[JTHunter]

On 9/4/2024 at 7:46 PM, Euler said:

On September 3, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to file a response and asked to present the motion to the court on September 11.

 

"9/11"?  Really? *palm to forehead and groans*

[Euler]

On September 6, the judge granted the extension and set the following schedule:

09/06: plaintiff's response due
09/19: defendant's reply due

The notice on September 11 is stricken as unnecessary.

I think those due dates are either a typo on the court documents or the judge (or clerk) set the schedule in error, like maybe he thinks it's still August.

[Euler]

On September 12, the judge issued a corrected order and schedule.

9/13: plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss due
9/23: defendant's reply due

Plaintiff filed the response on September 12.

[Euler]

On October 2, the court abeyed the case pending the shutdown (not that much has happened lately, anyway).

[Euler]

On November 14, the court resumed the case after the shutdown (and there is still nothing happening).

[Euler]

On February 6, the court dismissed Atkinson's claim as a matter of law, stating that, facially and as-applied, Bruen allows disarming felons for life.

Edited February 12, 2026 at 01:53 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On February 12, Atkinson filed notice of appeal to the 7th Circuit.

[Euler]

On February 20, CA7 docketed the appeal as Atkinson v Bondi.

[EdDinIL]

 

 

[EdDinIL]

double-tap.

Edited March 9, 2026 at 07:02 PM by EdDinIL
Negligent dispost

[Euler]

On April 2 in appellate court, Atkinson asked for an extension to file his brief. The court granted the extension and set the following schedule:

5/01: Atkinson's brief due
6/01: government's response due
6/22: Atkinson's reply, if any, due