mab22

But that would be a permanent injunction to moot the case?

A person who runs a Red light or Stop sign is non law abiding person, but I don't think you loose your constitutional rights. Same can be said for speeding, not bringing up your garbage can by the specified time. So why not just strip a person of ALL of their constitutional rights, no right to court or jury just lock them up indefinitely?

With a little bit more detail. https://www.foxnews.com/us/justice-department-sues-la-county-sheriff-over-concealed-carry-delays DOJ Statement. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-files-first-department-justice-affirmative-lawsuit-support-gun-owners Law suite PDF - https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1415706/dl

I would agree with that. It just furthers the argument that IL Democrats want a nullification of the federal constitution unless there is a clause they like, then it's "constitutional". My first concern is that the 2A groups will thrash it around as a 2A issue when there are other avenues which might be available.

Pretty sure this would violate the commerce clause…. I suspect they feel a PICA loss coming.

Nice so now they want to go after the “long guns”. I don’t think they are hiding anything, they think complete disarmament is the solution so the Marxists will have less actual resistance as they try to take over.

We have had 3 events recently and I am not hearing the gun control screeching like we normally do, or maybe I am missing it? We had the Church shooting in MN, Kirk assassination, detainees at a Dallas ICE facility. Yet I don’t hear the need for more gun control. Is it off the table now?

If the voice i hear is Easterbrook around 1:19 ish and at 1:45 ish there is a question about the 1 court making such a BROAD ruling, he is going to push to narrow the ruling to the named plaintiffs ONLY, Trump v Casa. So then what do the rest of us do, class action and start again and wait another year or two? Is Fatman and Kwama going to give up that easily or are they going to say the ruling ONLY applies to the named plaintiffs? My times are based off of this video.

How about even simpler, what happens to the 7th if the get overruled by SCOTUS? Smaller paychecks? No. Loss of employment?No. Loose their “district”? No. Get a bad review that year and don’t get the bonus or guaranteed salary increase due to COLA? NO. Look at the 9th, or the NY Judge that fined President Donald J. Trump a half Billion. He was celebrated! The left celebrates and praises them for taking a bold stance and 💩!

Gee! 5 whole minutes. Who thinks the judges will give 2 💩 about what she says and will go their own way? I don't think they will care myself.... I truly hope I am wrong and it makes a difference!

States like IL, CA, NY, just won't enforce it, they nullify the constitution and who is in charge of the laws when they want. It will be called it bigoted and get all the phoebes. If they do enforce it I can only imagine the backlash that is coming and how else they will make EVERYONE a prohibited possessor. You have red blood? Prohibited! The D party and the DSA wing of it look to certain groups to be their new militant wing, just like they had 60 to 90 years ago.

Watching the video from Washington Gun law I find it ironic the they put this in the ruling. "The virtue of our federal system is that citizens who find themselves on the losing end of legislative disputes in their state may vote with their feet and move to a jurisdiction where their views have prevailed. " At the same time our dumb slob of a GUV, who could NOT have came up with this on his own, let alone the D party in Illinois, also made the similar comment about leaving the state if you don't like it here. Did the ruling get leaked and give them some catchy slogan to use? NO WAY that is a coincidence in this crap-a-licious state!

Can they request the "dog ate my cat which ate my papers I was going to use to argue" excuse to get more continuances?

That is some Genuine grade A B.S! I will attempt to translate how I see it. Notice no mention of the "Constitution" or rights. They are a FOID holder. (So what, pandering!!) Guns are bad and hurt peoples. People think they needs guns for offense! People think they needs guns for self defense! They can just use their words for self defense. (No sense of reality, but that is a given IMO.) Quite the "Motherly" suggestion... Only peoples who want to shoot targets and hunt tiny game should be allowed to have them. Oh and for farms.... I shudder to think how they think guns are used on "livestock". 🤦‍♂️ And there is something about forced classes in there for government issued permission slips for "ownership" of "weaponry".

The bypass of unusual and dangerous, now it is unusually dangerous. So golly gee back to scotus to play language romper room with the mix of words. Can we have that divorce now, where libs go somewhere else and the normal people somewhere else and we live in peace?