Sweeper13 Posted December 24, 2025 at 10:19 PM Posted December 24, 2025 at 10:19 PM On 12/23/2025 at 5:19 PM, EdDinIL said: Someone with way more time, access, and data collating skills than me could probably come up with a general idea of how long it takes for 7CA to issue a ruling. My money is on "not until the current SCOTUS term ends". If the state wins, do we have to request an en banc hearing, or can it go straight to SCOTUS? I assume if we win, the state will request a stay and an en banc hearing as part of the slow-walk playbook. I'm not sure if you watched this, he explains different scenarios. Start at 10:40.
EdDinIL Posted December 30, 2025 at 06:12 AM Posted December 30, 2025 at 06:12 AM On 12/24/2025 at 4:19 PM, Sweeper13 said: I'm not sure if you watched this, he explains different scenarios. Start at 10:40. I watched it when it came out, but forgot about it. Thanks for the refresher. Answers my question exactly. State wins, good team goes to SCOTUS. Good team wins, state goes en banc. Nevermind what he said about remand, I was just looking for the eventual way forward. Let's hope remand doesn't happen, though.
Dumak_from_arfcom Posted December 31, 2025 at 03:21 AM Posted December 31, 2025 at 03:21 AM On 12/30/2025 at 12:12 AM, EdDinIL said: I watched it when it came out, but forgot about it. Thanks for the refresher. Answers my question exactly. State wins, good team goes to SCOTUS. Good team wins, state goes en banc. Nevermind what he said about remand, I was just looking for the eventual way forward. Let's hope remand doesn't happen, though. I've been wondering why Viramontes is sitting at SCOTUS. I'm wondering if they might hold it, and keep it in their back pocket in case Easterbrook does a remand on Barnett.
yurimodin Posted December 31, 2025 at 04:36 PM Posted December 31, 2025 at 04:36 PM On 12/30/2025 at 9:21 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said: I've been wondering why Viramontes is sitting at SCOTUS. I'm wondering if they might hold it, and keep it in their back pocket in case Easterbrook does a remand on Barnett. or they could reach down from their ivory tower and just stop the nonsense......
mikew Posted December 31, 2025 at 06:14 PM Posted December 31, 2025 at 06:14 PM On 12/30/2025 at 9:21 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said: I've been wondering why Viramontes is sitting at SCOTUS. I'm wondering if they might hold it, and keep it in their back pocket in case Easterbrook does a remand on Barnett. DC v Heller took 5 years from being filed as Heller v DC in the district court to being handed a favorable ruling from SCOTUS. McDonald v Chicago took two years, and we got spoiled.
John Q Public Posted January 1, 2026 at 08:21 PM Posted January 1, 2026 at 08:21 PM And yet, here we are with full on bans for Ar, and standard mags, threaded barrel bans, safe storage laws, OP, and DTSOO, orders when you have no right to defend. How are we better and how long do we wait? I haven't seen the SC make any major moves, the ones they have made are so full of holes, the lower courts are driving rock trucks through them.
Upholder Posted January 1, 2026 at 11:57 PM Author Posted January 1, 2026 at 11:57 PM Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized. We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen.
davel501 Posted January 2, 2026 at 12:14 AM Posted January 2, 2026 at 12:14 AM On 1/1/2026 at 5:57 PM, Upholder said: Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized. We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen. Government wants their taxes on time every year.
EdDinIL Posted January 2, 2026 at 04:27 AM Posted January 2, 2026 at 04:27 AM On 1/1/2026 at 5:57 PM, Upholder said: Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized. We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen. Brown v Board of Education was a 9-0 unanimous decision that was generally accepted by the population and yet it still had to be enforced at gunpoint by the National Guard in some locations. Even if we had a national conversation about guns, 2A rights will never get the same level of acceptance, and good luck getting the IL National Guard to enforce it.
mikew Posted January 2, 2026 at 04:02 PM Posted January 2, 2026 at 04:02 PM On 1/1/2026 at 10:27 PM, EdDinIL said: Brown v Board of Education was a 9-0 unanimous decision that was generally accepted by the population and yet it still had to be enforced at gunpoint by the National Guard in some locations. Even if we had a national conversation about guns, 2A rights will never get the same level of acceptance, and good luck getting the IL National Guard to enforce it. And yet, here we are, the keyboard militia, arguing with each other over non-2A topics. Have you all written/called/visited anyone that represents you? Gone to a protest? Needed space to destroy? Or will we go silently?
EdDinIL Posted January 2, 2026 at 04:45 PM Posted January 2, 2026 at 04:45 PM On 1/2/2026 at 10:02 AM, mikew said: Or will we go silently? It's the last act of "not going silently" that scares the crap out of everyone, probably even more so than going silently. That's why we're pinning our hopes on the third box of liberty, not the fourth one.
John Q Public Posted January 2, 2026 at 09:10 PM Posted January 2, 2026 at 09:10 PM (edited) On 1/1/2026 at 5:57 PM, Upholder said: Brown vs Board of Education took 10 years to truly be recognized. We haven't yet hit the 3rd anniversary of Bruen. And we have more laws in violation than we did before it was passed. Edited January 2, 2026 at 09:11 PM by John Q Public
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now