All Activity

Hallelujah!

When things that I can't say in public happen.

Orals scheduled for 9/22. https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-06-30-Ntc-of-Oral-Argument-Set-for-09-22-25.pdf Kinda glad we're getting in before the end of September. -dan e

If even then.

Yeah, they made a movie about this many years ago. It was called "The Never Ending Story".

Mr. Donahue, In what city is your office located?

and on it goes forever...

Nice work!

Probably in 10 years

IIRC the compromise on the Hughes Amendment was that the gun companies had immunity from this gibberish......if that's the case then its time we get to pay the tax not a tax for a giggle switch.

Congratulations

On March 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court upheld lower court opinions that Springfield Armory was not liable for the shooting death of JR Gustafson in a lawsuit brought by his parents and Brady United. The facts of the case are scattered across several documents. I'll summarize. On March 20, 2016, 13-year-old JR Gustafson and his 14-year-old friend ("the juvenile") were visiting the home of another of their friends. In that home was a Springfield XD-9. Although there was not a magazine inserted into it, there was still a round in the chamber. The juvenile, in some manner not elucidated, found the firearm and, allegedly believing it to be unloaded, picked it up, pointed it at JR, and pulled the trigger, discharging it and killing JR. The juvenile admitted to this act and was subsequently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in juvenile court. The XD-9 was essentially not altered from its factory configuration and was fully functional in every way. In particular, the XD-9 does not have a magazine disconnect safety. JR's parents brought a suit in state court claiming that Springfield Armory was liable for JR's death, because the XD-9 was defective due to its lack of a magazine disconnect safety. (PLCAA does not apply to firearms with manufacturing or design defects.) The court dismissed the case on the basis of Springfield Armory's civil immunity under PLCAA, anyway. On June 10, the Gustafsons asked the US Supreme Court to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari from June 23 to July 23. On June 16, Alito granted the extension. (shadow docket)

On June 25, the appellate court scheduled oral arguments for August 4.

On June 23 in appellate court, meanwhile, the ATF/DOJ moved to extend the abeyance another 60 days. On June 25, the court granted the motion.

On June 26, the circuit court scheduled oral arguments for September 12.

On June 25 in appellate court, meanwhile, the court continued the stay. The court ordered that parties update it at 60-day intervals regarding whether to continue the stay.

On June 16, the judge set the following schedule: 7/7: response to motion to dismiss is due 7/14: reply is due 8/26: status hearing

On June 16, parties filed their joint status report as scheduled. On June 17, the court reminded parties that they are to file a status report on July 9 regarding whether they consider settlement to be an option. I predict "No."

On June 27, the district judge denied the motion. FWIW, the McCoy and Brown cases in WV about Under-21 handgun purchases are the cases where (bizarrely IMO) IL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA (led by Giffords and Brady) somehow convinced the court to let them be defendants (not just amici) defending the federal handgun ban.

On June 23, the abeyance expired. On June 26, the ATF/DOJ moved to extend the abeyance. On June 27, the plaintiffs (including TX, but led by GOA) responded opposing the abeyance.

Cases from state SCs can be petitioned to the US SC. The US SC didn't take Charles Nichols' open carry cases from California. I doubt they'll take one from IL.

Can this brought before the federal sc?

It's more crap, as of now, because half the guns you would use for this training may not be purchased anymore, even if you are private detective. The guns can not be owned by the agency as there is a FOID requirement and FOIDs can not be issued to a business, only a person. There is no carve out to buy the weapons needed for private use, or training.

That, and the idea that the IL Supreme Court would reject something like this is …….. Is anyone really “shocked”?

Following the Firearm Training link from the list of professions on IDFPR, leads to a page titled Alarm Professions, which includes several links for "Firearm Instruction." Indeed, "Firearm Instructor" is just a trainer for armed guards. The list of qualifications is slightly interesting. It's a FOID and one of: NRA certificate for Law Enforcement Firearms InstructorIllinois Law Enforcement Police Training and Standards Board recognized range instructorEquivalent experience or education received in military service or federal law enforcement serviceAny other equivalent experience or education as deemed by the Division