Frank Easterbrook, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Previous Post
Next Post

A Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge has stayed the preliminary injunction issued a week ago by a lower court. That restores the Land of Lincoln’s new gun and magazine ban.  Judge Stephen McGlynn from the Southern District of Illinois had previously ruled that plaintiff would likely prevail against the ban and blocked enforcement of the ban, restoring sales of the newly-banned items.

The state appealed the decision within hours and when McGlynn didn’t immediately reverse himself, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

It all made more sense when we found out the judge who issued the stay which restored the gun ban was Judge Frank Easterbrook. Before his appointment to the appellate court, Easterbrook served as a federal district judge. He wrote the Friedman decision, upholding the state’s ban on the AR-15 and many other semi-automatic firearms. Easterbrook’s Friedman decision relied on the two-step, interest-balancing test that was later explicitly repudiated by the Supreme Court in its Bruen decision.

From the Cook County Record . . .

…However, in the order, Easterbrook gave the plaintiffs until May 9 to file a response to the order.

He notably directed them to include in their response a discussion on “the bearing of” two prior decisions from the Seventh Circuit addressing the constitutionality of “assault weapons” bans. In those decisions, known as Friedman v Highland Park and Wilson v Cook County, the Seventh Circuit court upheld “assault weapons” bans in suburban Highland Park and in Cook County, finding the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right for Americans to keep and bear arms did not prevent governments from banning entire categories of firearms in the name of public safety.

In the Friedman decision, particularly, the Seventh Circuit declared its belief the Second Amendment “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” The court noted people living under such bans could still purchase other firearms for self-defense.

The state appeared to use those local bans as models for the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act.

In other words, Judge Easterbrook ignored plain language of the Bruen decision, instead trying to defend his faulty Friedman ruling as black letter law when, in a post-Bruen world, it’s really dead-letter law.

Many believe this new stay of the injunction will influence Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s decision-making on the Naperville “assault weapons” ban case that’s due Monday.

Who knows? Judge Easterbrook’s stunt, issuing a stay based on a faulty ruling, might backfire on those wanting to validate past rulings on laws that banned some of the most popular and effective guns used for self-defense. It might provoke SCOTUS to weigh in on these gun bans sooner rather than later. Watch this space.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Fire off another emergency appeal, isn’t Justice Amy Coney-Barrett the SCotUS contact for that circuit?

    At this point, it’s simple insolence.

    He needs an Attitude Adjustment :

  2. Judge Frank Easterbrook needs to be removed from the Court and disbarred. He is a disgrace to the American Bar. Is Soros paying him? He has totally disrespected the LAW and SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. God Bless the Second Amendment and the ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO OWN AND POSSESS ANY WEAPONS WE CHOOSE!!!

    • Instead of dead and buried an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide known as Gun Control is alive and well today in The Land of Lincoln.

      It’s what continues to happen when do it for me Gun Owning slackers addicted to Doritos and courtroom drama fail to define Gun Control according to its Roots in Racism and Genocide.

      Until the public reacts to Gun Control the way the public reacts when seeing a Noose expect the same old same old.

      • Many people that weren’t black have been/continue to be hanged. Not everyone sees a noose and thinks SOLELY of a black person being lynched.

        Not everyone sees gun control as a race based matter and won’t change their views to be pro-gun based on your opinions of history and how it does or doesn’t affect things today.

        You’ve gone full fucking retard on this subject. You are blind to the progress in recent years and blind to the fact pro-gun decisions have not been based on race. Your inability to pull your head out and see what is going on in the country, courts, and legislatures now makes your argument silly and ineffective. You hurt the gun rights discussion with your screeching dumbfuckery talking about race and ignoring completely the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

        You are a fucking bafoon.

        • cato..Everything you just said confirms again you are a Gun Control history illiterate snot nosed twit who is not worth spit when it comes to Defending The Second Amendment.

          Long before my time The History of Gun Control Defined Gun Control and because of the price paid by others the Definition of Gun Control never changes. A price a worthless pos like you has no problem sweeping under the carpet.

          It would be a cold day in hell before a punk like you ever stood to Define Gun Control. If it was up to you Gun Control would never be defined and left alone to run the show like it just did right under that anus beneath your nose in The Land of Lincoln.

        • jr…you, cato and your ilk are exactly why The Second Amendment means murder and mayhem to marching history illiterates begging big government for Gun Control…Take bow a-holes.

        • aq…you spin like jr, cato and marxist democRats. Just do what I asked and LMK what people say to you…Very simple…Over

        • Lots of places have gun control and not all for the same reasons. The difference, Americans have the Second Amendment, something you never defend on its own when you only bring up race.

          “Second Amendment means murder and mayhem to marching history illiterates…”

          History includes what is happening now. History is made every day and attitudes change. Unfortunately you are stuck on stupid and stuck inn the past.

          Let the smart grownups fight the 2A battles, you need to STFU and go lay down next to your dish.

        • RE: cato “Lots of places have gun control and not all for the same reasons. The difference, Americans have the Second Amendment, something you never defend on its own when you only bring up race.”

          Only? You must get out of your cage more often because to save your losing behind you have to exaggerate exactly like a cornered democRat drama.

          I hate to tell you but lines of crap like your “lots of places have gun control” gibberish gives Gun Control standing. To say such crap you might as well be wearing a sheet and pointed hat or swaztikas and a brown shirt.

          When it comes to Defending The Second Amendment you are clearly a little man with no foundation whatsoever…sad.

        • “When it comes to Defending The Second Amendment you are clearly a little man with no foundation whatsoever…sad.”

          Based on the latest developments, the arguments that I and others have put forward seem to be the ones winning in court.

          Name one new law granting more 2A rights that have been passed because some dumb kunt argued in court or in a state legislature that the anti-gun position was the same as “wearing a sheet and pointed hat or swaztikas and a brown shirt.”

          So keep screeching if you want, but you sound like madcow infested whorebag.

        • aq…Grow a pair and ask the next 10 people you encounter to define Gun Control…LMK what they say to you…and do not come back empty handed….Over

        • cato…All you have left is what you had from the get-go…slander and libel.

        • aq…You changed the subject, my money says you have not and will not ask 10 people anymore than cato the gutless wonder would…What matters to you is where I am and not what your legislators are thinking and doing, says a lot about you…Over

        • Cato, it seems the racism belongs to Leftists like you. Get lost. We have no found department.

      • Roger that. Dunno what exactly that will accomplish tho. And how many pair am I supposed to have? I have one pair, am I supposed to have two pair? Im not a biologist.

        On another topic, can we all agree that AOC from New York is terrible for the country??!!

        Shes stirring up everyone about the marine who choked out the crazy homeless guy on the subway. Calling it murder before an investigation has been done.
        And she wants to stamp out anybody that incites violence supposedly..and shes one of the biggest inciters.

    • Yes I would say Soros is paying him if not someone else.
      There is no honor above the dollar.

  3. The problem with decisions like this is that they’re based upon subjective opinions (what is “too dangerous” and what is “public safety”). Last I checked, the 27 words chosen by the Founders presented a rather objective rule by which Government is to abide.

    We The People are, if the system works as originally created, intended to outweigh the opinion of one judge.

  4. I’m becoming a militant. And And we’re moving to Indiana. And taking my rifle. EFF this evil “judge”🙄😠

    • As a Hoosier, come on over as quick as you can. We’ll be glad to have you!

    • Excuse me Walker would you please cease your incessant whining and just make the move already

    • Thats what i been thinking. Start some kind of 2a militia. But i have the job and all that, kind of gets in the way.

      • Ha, starting a militia only gets the feds crashing down on you.
        I think it was during the Cliton regime that the system was trying to ban the wearing of camouflage clothes.
        And remember, every militia is a racist hate group, even if its s black militia, it’s a racist hate group. Cant have that. “They” were racist, never mind they were Constitutionalist putting freedom first.

  5. Never trust a system to look out for anything but the system.
    The very notion of mother-may-i’ing to a bunch of robes is absurd.
    Right now SCOTUS may appear favorable but this will not always be the case and the cycle will just repeat.

    • Eggsackly
      9 robes can change the Constitution.
      WTF does Shall Not be Infringed mean. It doesn’t mean it’s a debate to be twisted and worded until you find out what the meaning of the word is is.
      I dont think Supreme Court Judges should be lawyers. Lawyers have a habit of twisting words and finding loopholes to get what they want. How do you get a lawyer to work for you? Money.
      Soros is evil

      • HEAR! HEAR!
        What the marsupial said.
        It says what it means and it means what it says.

  6. But poking the bear never serves a purpose……… unless you goad them into falling into a pit.

  7. Regardless of what the previous ruling stated, how do they justify banning an entire class of weapons and or accessories; when there is no proof to justify the ruling?

    While on the subject of firearm regulations that are unfair: why are we infringed upon our right to transfer firearms to our offspring, or other family members in another state? Especially strange, is when they have met the restrictive obligations of said state, yet we are still not allowed to do so?

    Why is a firearm that is supposedly SAFE for ownership in Oregon, Utah, Arizona (for example), NOT SAFE for ownership in Washington, California, Illinois?

    Yes, there is NO DOUBT, the Supremes NEED to SET a Precdent and remove all the Infringement taking place across this nation.

    • As we’ve seen time and again, the Marxists don’t care what the Supremes say. They simply pass another unconstitutional law that will have to work it’s way through through the legal system and then pass another until something sticks.
      Lawfare is the practice of perverting any law that does not fit the agenda, regardless of intent or constitutional basis.

    • Daniel S.,

      “… how do they justify banning an entire class of weapons and or accessories; when there is no proof to justify the ruling?

      Why would you ascribe to the notion that Far Left Pr0gressive True Believers need any justification, much less proof, for their political platform, policy choices, laws, and court rulings?

      You would be wise to understand a simple fact and incorporate your knowledge of this simple fact into your life: the Far Left does what it wants simply because it wants to and because they can get away with it. Decency, facts, wrong-versus-right, justice, laws, and court precedents mean nothing to the Far Left.

      Think about a vile scumbag rapist: how come decency, facts, wrong-versus-right, justice, and laws do not stop him from raping? Because he simply does not care about any of those things and therefore goes after what he wants. Sadly, Far Left Pr0gressive True Believers operate the same way.

    • They don’t, they delay having proper hearings (lol standing) using every trick they can then take as much time as possible when forced and staying any decisions favorable to gun owners they can get away with and we will see what happens when they do rule in a month or two for the expected 2nd circuit CCIA decision for the rest of the template for gun control friendly courts.

  8. HOLD on just a minute. Let me get this straight:

    A Far Left Pr0gressive True Believer judge ruled in favor of his tribe’s politics rather than justice, the clear and unambiguous language of a recent and controlling United States Supreme Court ruling, and the Supreme Law of the Land (a.k.a. the United States Constitution)?

    This is my surprised face.

    • What this country needs is common sense laws to protect the people from “Assault Judges”. Right now, the Democrat led U.S. Senate is appointing, loading if you will, high-capacity courts with these “rights-killing” assault judges. We need something done now…for the children.

      • at some point the supremes are going to have to further define Heller,,,all these laws and restrictions are pushing us closer to that

  9. No Sympathy…You get the tyranny you allow. The Founding Patriots came to that conclusion. The only difference between those Men and Woman and those of today. Is determination and a willingness to throw off the bonds of their oppressors.
    “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” Ronald Reagan
    Is this to be that generation or worse the generation of our children. Due to the failures of this generation.

    • According to this leftists professors new book the the next generations taking over are broken, mentally ill, insecure yet entitled, self-medicating, suicidal, chronically anxious, clinically depressed, childless nut jobs incapable of speaking to other human beings or performing the most basic functions of life yet she concludes they’ll all be great and we’ll all be better for it because they identify their pronouns and know how to consume crap on their phones.

      So don’t worry. Western civilization is in good hands.

  10. Instead, Judge Andrews said the guns and magazines prohibited by Delaware represent a “dramatic technological change and unprecedented societal concerns for public safety” because semi-automatic firearms were not popular before the 20th Century and have been used in high-profile mass shootings.

    Next: Judge Andrews bans the Internet. His decision was written on parchment with a quill pen, and hand-delivered by horse-back courier.

    Different case but the same “judicial logic.”

    • Semiauto “not popular” pre-1900? That is like saying personal computers weren’t “popular” in the 1950s…

      • A semi-automatic firearm, back when I learned a definition, was merely one that did not require any intervention after one round was fired before you could fire another. Loosely speaking, even a double action revolver is semi-automatic.

  11. Seems this judge needs to read the Second Amendment, not to mention the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen Decisions.

    • Worse. He was part of the McDonald case (and ruled in favor of the GOV), which was overturned by SCOTUS. This guy has some cojenes to be sure. ACB has a bigger stick, though…

    • They have all been indoctrinated to believe that since the late 70’s. In the Liberal Progressive educational Indoctrination system. Formally known as public education. Fortunately there are still some states where this has been halted and reversed. Not since the 1860’s has the nation been so divided on subject that determines the direction of the nation. One that may well yet require a Uncivil war to rectify.

      • Darkman, I agree with you except for one point. They are not “Liberals”. They are Leftists. I can’t use the “S” word here because they will put me in “moderation jail.”

    • Understand, he has read it and even swore and Oath to uphold, protect and defend it. His political agenda overrides his sense of duty to follow that Oath ans since no one is willing to hold him and his ilk accountable for said violations. There is no fear to do otherwise.

  12. The first entirely practical “assault weapon” that I am aware of was the Model 1905 Winchester. Finally discontinued in 1954, iirc.

    Definitely banned in Illinois.

  13. Decisions like this will continue unabated unless or until such largess to the leftist masters has consequences. To Democrats the law is fungible; to be molded suiting the latest fads. To conservatives, the Constitution is the back stop.
    If you want to enrage a conservative – Tell him a lie
    If you want to enrage a leftist – Tell him the truth.

  14. Judges like this should remember that a big reason we have the Bruen decision, is that choads like him just could not help themselves in 2nd Amendment cases, and refused to follow the guidance of Heller concerning weapons in common use for lawful purposes. Every time they applied a balancing test, they gave a lot of weight to the most hypothetical, indirect, diffuse, or conjectural claims of public benefit, and zero weight to individual freedom, self-defense, or the black-on-white right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    So now the Supremes gave you Bruen, to take those balancing tests away from you, to take away your weaselly workarounds to Heller. Do we need a more explicit ruling protecting the 2nd Amendment?

    • YESl YES WE DO!
      It needs to say read em and weep aholes!

    • Correct. And that’s why I think ACB entered the order she did in the Napiersville case calling for a response . . . she’s a former CTA7 judge and known the mindset of folks like Easterbrook.

      Now, procedurally that case will still be a heavy procedural lift for the plaintiffs (denials of preliminary injunctions must be shown to have been an abuse of discretion, which is very hard to do, and the chances of SCOTUS intervening where a court of appeals has held “no abuse of discretion proven” is always vanishingly slim). But in the instant case, if the panel extends Easterbrook’s administrative stay based on application of the two pre-Bruen decisions to stay or vacate the preliminary injunction, I will not be surprised to see SCOTUS reach out and touch someone.

      Having said all this, GSL’s little end zone dance while taunting the refs certainly didn’t help the odds of this happening. Stupid and counterproductive.

  15. It might be wise for these lower courts to recall what happened in some states after the Supreme Court struck down the “Separate But Equal” laws. I remember it well, although I was rather young. Granted most of these judges are relatively young, but one would think they learned about Brown vs Board of Education and its aftermath in law school.

    • But that was against evil racists and they are on the right side of history™. Education does not always impart self reflection let alone self awareness.

    • “It might be wise for these lower courts to recall what happened in some states after the Supreme Court struck down the “Separate But Equal” laws.”

      Yep, the (Democrat) racists sure hated that ruling, and vowed until death to fight it anyway they could. And did they ever fight, for decades. Progress was slow, but things are a lot different today.

      I’d like to believe things will eventually get better for gun rights, but those actual fascists will never give up until they crush freedom into a pulp.

      It’s so bizarre to see ‘1984’ playing out for real, with them talking about ‘our democracy’, when in reality what they really want is literal totalitarianism. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read them saying variations of things things like “I can’t wait until they will never win a major election again.” Hello?

  16. You would think that a Judge(s) of an inferior court would actually read Supreme Court Opinions in McDonald and Bruen. The court literally laid out in very simple terms how judges should reason decisions concerning the 2nd Amendment.

    Clearly this is an Arms Ban Case, These banned arms are in Common use by Americans for lawful purposes. Therefore it is incumbent on the government to show that their is a historical precedent at the time of the founding in 1791 and there is none.

    These courts should have granted a permanent injunction against Illinois and put a stop to all this government civil disobedience.

    • They read it, they understood it, like the lady above who commented on the “Separate But Equal” laws, like hell will they *ever* respect it… 🙁

  17. This is not about the Constitution, the law, logic or common sense. The anti’s want these gun laws so they FEEL safe, not be safe. They fear us like Dracula fears the sunlight. This is so deep seated that we cannot change it. Heaven help us!

    • “Heaven help us.”
      Cant remember the name but Jesus didnt go to some island because it was full of demons

    • Heaven, can’t help us down here, that’s why we carry… 🙂

  18. Easterbrook is a well-known quantity and this is entirely unsurprising. He believes he should be on SCOTUS, and he doesn’t give a shit what they think because as another Circuit judge once said (paraphrasing) “I will rule however I want, because SCOTUS can’t overturn them all”. I love how he is actually attempting to have them address previous 7th Circuit precedent that was been overruled by SCOTUS as if it is somehow still good law lol. What a clown

    • Yep, the ghost of Stephen Reinhardt smiles. (He was a left-wing Ninth Circuit Judge who cynically laughed off the high rate of his decisions being reversed by SCOTUS, saying “they can’t catch ‘em all.”)

      Justice Thomas clearly foresaw that the Easterbrooks of the world would continue to play games with 2A, which is why I think he went as far as he did in Bruen. Now hopefully we’ll start seeing some SCOTUS GVR’s and orders vacating stays, as a message reminding them who’s boss.

      • “Now hopefully we’ll start seeing some SCOTUS GVR’s and orders vacating stays, as a message reminding them who’s boss.”

        And when they dig in their heels with crap like “Separate but Equal” many decades back?

        When a GVR is thrown back in their face, and they play games again?

        What then?

        • Lower court judges who refuse to follow an explicit mandate from a higher court in a particular case are, fortunately, few and far between, but not unheard of.

          I know of a certain federal district judge who would commonly say on the record that he didn’t “care what the Fifth Circuit says,” and after being reversed by the Fifth Circuit was known to brazenly ignore the ruling and hold the same thing again.

          When I had an argument at the Fifth Circuit a few years ago, the case in front of me was an appeal from a judgment from this judge. The attorney for the appellant had barely started when the following happened (paraphrasing from memory):

          PRESIDING JUDGE: This is an appeal from Judge [omitted]?
          COUNSEL: That’s correct, Your Honor.
          PRESIDING JUDGE: [*sigh*]. What did he do this time?

          When said judge would refuse to respect the mandate from the circuit court, the Fifth Circuit would take care of that by including in the second remand an order for the chief judge of the district to assign the case to a different judge. Those became much more common toward the end of said judge’s service.

          I don’t think that even Easterbrook would be so brazen to ignore a direct order from SCOTUS in a particular case. But if he did (or continued to just ignore Bruen), I suspect the court would send him a message by just routinely GVR’ing stuff from him, and you’d probably see Alito issue a concurring opinion lighting him up for posterity.

          I instead expect the next mode of “resistance” from the Easterbrooks of the world will be passive-aggressive stuff like applying Bruen through clenched teeth but writing long and loud that they are doing it under protest, that the blood of the victims is on Justice Thomas’ hands, etc.

  19. So now firearms purchased during “freedom week” have been declared illegal and are supposed to be disposed of by 01/01/24 according to email received from Illinois State Police according to latest video by Todd Vandermyde.

    • Silly question but with a foid card in IL what record is there of a purchase?

      • The same 4473 used in any new firearm purchase when required but no other database in Illinois. Of course they could go to the gun stores and ask to see these 4473 from the “freedom week” time period. If you bought a Glock19 no problem but if you bought an evil Glock 17 you could be in big legal trouble.

        How in the world are all the people who bought “banned firearms” during this period supposed to know that they now will be in possession of an illegal weapon after 01/01/2024 assuming this bad law is still in effect? More than likely a very small percentage of them keep up to date with all these details about the Illinois AWB and court shenanigans.

        • “Persons who possess a banned firearm or firearm attachment are required to endorse an affidavit by January 1, 2024, stating that any banned firearm or firearm attachments were possessed prior to the enactment of PICA (January 10, 2023) …”

          Sign on the dotted line. Who would be the wiser?

    • Good grief. Well, I guess that reaction to GSL’s end zone dance isn’t too surprising.

      OTOH, just as GSL’s move was unwise and counterproductive to its litigation posture, this heavy-handed move by the state may similarly backfire, as it now gives SCOTUS a tangible reason to vacate a stay.

      • LKB — what’s your opinion on the declaration that weapons purchased during the week-long injunction, are illegal?

        I thought that a “preliminary injunction” meant that the law was not in effect during that time — but obviously, IANAL.

        Would this issue become moot should the stay be lifted?

        • It’s hard to say. *If* the law is ultimately upheld, then stuff purchased after the law went into effect isn’t covered by the grandfathering provisions of the law, and thus would indeed be illegal. There are some countervailing arguments, but I doubt they’d succeed.

          But I don’t give the law much chance of being upheld.

  20. at some point the supremes are going to have to further define Heller,,,all these laws and restrictions are pushing us closer to that

    • I think they already have for the most part and there dangers in getting too specific too. The progressive politicians and judges simply ignore what is in Heller and Bruen now or twist it around to suit their needs such as in using just “dangerous” to ban firearms rather than “dangerous AND unusual”.

      It’s going to be really interesting to see what Amy Coney Barrett does next. I have to believe she and the others are not deaf to talks about “court packing” and more recent attacks on the character of some of her fellow Justices (and their spouses) by the MSM and the talk by some in a separate branch of government to do “investigations” of them.

Comments are closed.