TTAG’s own LKB, an attorney, took both me and Guns Save Life to task for touting Illinois’ Freedom Week following a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois. LKB, in comments on the story TTAG published last Saturday, suggests that our publicity will be used against us in subsequent hearings.
Your linked article, wherein you and GSL crow about a “Freedom Week” and publicly encourage people to immediately go purchase “banned” stuff, is exceedingly foolish. I’ll bet that’s now going to be Exhibit A in an emergency motion to the Seventh Circuit, and markedly reduces the chances that the district court might “slow walk” a decision on a motion to stay.
You could QUIETLY have gotten the word out that there’s a window of opportunity, and the subject would have gone viral among the Illinois PoTG. But by publicly pushing the action in this way, you’ve now made it significantly easier for the Seventh Circuit to justify an emergency stay.
Did anyone with GSL vet this strategy with anyone remotely familiar with federal appellate law?
Think, people, THINK!
I have the highest respect for LKB. At the same time, there’s risk in everything we do. Frankly, if we as individual gun owners were risk adverse, we wouldn’t be gun rights activists. We’d lay low and mind our Ps and Qs. We wouldn’t stand as named as individual plaintiffs or representatives of organizational plaintiffs.
We sure as heck wouldn’t carry a gun in public for personal defense. And those of us who are sheepdogs wouldn’t even consider coming to the aid of a cop or another innocent facing death or great bodily injury at the hands of an evil-doer.
In fact, we might eschew guns altogether. Then again, we might also fear getting behind the wheel of a car, or walking down stairs, or going to see the doctor or getting treated in a hospital. After all, medical mistakes kill more people each year than guns, cars, and terrorists combined.
We didn’t publicize the injunction in the Illinois case and tout it as “Freedom Week” on a whim.
So yes, we as Guns Save Life (my day gig) touted “Freedom Week” in a loud and proud manner, to borrow a slogan from the gay rights movement.
Speaking of the gay rights movement: back in the 1950s, gays hid in the proverbial closet to avoid social stigma and unconstitutional laws aimed at gays. In the last few decades, they’ve rather successfully adopted a more loud and proud style of advocacy to advance gay rights. They didn’t gain equal rights by quietly cowering, worrying that someone would use their advocacy against them. They knew that whatever they did, some people would try to turn it back on them.
They got aggressive about promoting equality for gays and have probably achieved more than they thought possible.
Many gun owners in America, face similar bigotry, prejudice, and stereotypes from gun-haters, especially in big cities. Gun owners certainly face a litany of discriminatory, unconstitutional laws.
It’s bad enough that a number of Guns Save Life members living in Chicago have asked if we could mail Guns Save Life’s monthly journal GunNews (click here for latest issue) in a plain brown wrapper as if it was a smut magazine. These people worry that they’ll face a backlash from neighbors and at work for exercising a fundamental constitutional right.
While all gun organizations are different, Guns Save Life doesn’t practice hide-in-the-closet, lay-low advocacy. We put up a couple of dozen Burma Shave-style highway signs along Interstates and highways in Illinois. Over a half-million people read slogans like this one every day . . .
AND I’M ON HOLD
SURE WISH I HAD
THAT GUN I SOLD
We took guns up to Chicago’s “buybacks” and brought home thousands of dollars to send kids to an NRA Youth Camp. We got international publicity for doing so and gave Chicago a big enough black eye that they stopped hosting the buybacks for two or three years. Even today, Chicago gun buybacks are but a tiny shadow of what they once were.
We meet proudly and publicly in ten regions across the Prairie State, practicing grassroots gun rights advocacy. We inform, we educate, and we entertain attendees and help them keep things in perspective.
GSL is batting .750 in front of the Illinois Supreme Court, winning one case and half of another. We’ve got another lawsuit challenging the FOID Act for all Land of Lincoln residents that’s probably three months away from a court ruling striking it down (we hope). And we’re a named plaintiff in that federal action where a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Jay’s Pritzker’s gun and magazine ban.
We’ll take our chances advocating for gun ownership loudly and proudly. Especially for those who need the most popular and effective firearms for self-defense.
Loud and proud, JB…loud and proud.
Keep up the good fight!
Well, LKB has a good point, actually, as our own Lefty A.G. Bonta here in CA used that very logic to petition for an emergency motion to block continued sales while the appellate process was being pursued.
Presently You`ll be able win Up To from 99000 Bucks A Month! There are no confinements, Be Your Claim Boss, it All depends on you And how much you want to win each day. Typically a veritable and ensured strategy at no cost to gain a gigantic whole of cash at domestic. Connect this right now…… https://richepay.blogspot.com/
All the more reason to spread the word as far and wide and fast as possible, so everyone can get their goodies before the next curtain falls.
Aaaand . . . Seventh Circuit grants an emergency motion for stay. Law is now back in place.
Was the GSL end zone dance and ref taunting a contributing factor? Who knows. But it didn’t help.
Are you looking for a job of your choice??? Can’t find the job you want even after visiting different websites? Considering your needs, we have organized our website with all categories of jobs, visit this link now….. https://earnwork8.blogspot.com
Playing quiet and safe got us to where we are. Put them on the defensive and don’t let up.
Don’t allow them a defense. Hammer, hammer, hammer. Kinda like in football, when everyone scrambles to get the next play underway, while the defense is still in the huddle. Concede nothing, not even that they have a defense.
See my comments below.
Playing a hurry-up offense is one thing. Taunting the refs in the first quarter is quite another.
One is aggressive, and can be a good strategy *if* you have more stamina than your opponent.
The other is counterproductive.
I think we are in a pretty good place with the current makeup of SCOTUS and the Bruen ruling. More states have Constitutional carry, and the states that are trying to circumvent Bruen will fail.
We are in this position now because Conservative politicians and judges were put in positions of power to make these changes.
The solution is clear, we’ve seen it work and we need to keep doing what works.
None of the advancements of the last 6+ years have been won by idiots screaming about racist laws of the past. NOT FUCKING ONE.
If we can amplify the Constitutional arguments, seen as more rational/intelligent and stop the simple minded fools that couldn’t form a new idea if they had to, we will advance gun right further and faster.
“I think we are in a pretty good place with the current makeup of SCOTUS…”
Regards SCOTUS, we are dependent upon Thomas living another 20yrs+, and the unpredictable Gorsuch. Along with that, we are dependent upon a US Senate perpetually ruled by conservatives (conservatives, rather than Republicrats).
And poor chances of being in power in the WH in 2024.
We’ll have the senate, most likely, so we can play hardball and just not vote to seat any Leftist-Fascist Scum ™ to the high court.
(Although they will scream “Pack the court!” even louder…)
This, the whole if I just don’t make them mad thing has done nothing but lose rights. It’s saddening but also explains why we keep losing when one of the people arguing for RKBA cases suggests and continues to employ this losing strategy.
Uh huh. Care to explain how we got Bruen? Or do you call that “losing”?
Bruen was won by fighting smart and playing the long game. That’s how litigation works.
We made them mad, they did not like Gorsech, Kavanaugh, or Barrett. They did not like Bruen and more than they liked Heller and while strategy is involved lets not pretend it was largely pushed by those with liberty in mind. You are absolutely correct in the stamina question but I doubt it will be a winner take all scenario as much as a push as far as you can until they push back then hold the new line. I just want to see that line be easier to defend and substantially more free than they would ever want.
“ I just want to see that line be easier to defend and substantially more free than they would ever want.”
Fair enough. So how does taunting the courts *while the case is still pending* create a more defensible line? Or have does it create an unnecessarily issue that weakens your position.
When the case is won, celebrate to your heart’s content. Issue celebratory press releases. Trash talk the Illinois politicians and AG if you want. But doing it while the case is pending — to say nothing of taunting the courts during that period — is just plain stupid.
Some may see it as taunting others may see it as advertising common use items to stock up on. Whether a ruling against the temporary window happens or not is irrelevant compared to expanding common use in the later court actions especially when it would barely impact the facts of the cases presented if at all.
I assume “taunting” the courts would never be a good idea at anytime before or after a win.
The numbers of sales in a single week is going to be immaterial WRT a “common use” finding. If the tens of millions of AR platform weapons already in civilian hands isn’t common use, an other few thousand aren’t gonna matter.
As far as taunting, when the entire thrust of the campaign was “go stock up before the court can do anything,” that’s waving a flag in front of the bull. As Muckraker observes, that’s never a good idea, especially when, again, they could easily have gotten the word out without their fingerprints being all over it.
Keeping in mind I am under the 2nd circuit, I have never seen a time where it would have mattered or made any judgement any more negative to liberty than they could get away with anyway. And you would be surprised how many could flood an area in the space of a week. Hundreds of thousands are not out of the question.
Ah, the classic “agree to some gun control now or you might lose more later” Fudd mentality.
Not one inch. When a clearing on the beach head appears land, LAND, L A N D !
Nobody should be ashamed of exercising a right. The people constantly working to restrict rights should not just be living in shame but fear.
“The people constantly working to restrict Rights should not just be living in shame but fear.”
I have, without shame or fear, co-opted your words for future use. I get some of my best rebuttals and phrases from the POTG here on TTAG…thank you (I did capitalize the -R- in rights, it seems more appropriate).
“When it comes to a Civil Right…Neither public opinion nor any risk presented by that Right. Is a Moral or Ethical reason to curtail that Right.”
m i a.
I’m not so polite Boch. I was one who told LKB he was full of it. Living a scant mile from Indiana reminds me quite often that ILLANNOY sux. I wish we’d known when we moved here in 2000 how much better it was a bit east!
Well if you search the replies to Freedom Week yours truly left a nice, fitting reply to LKB’s Think people Think…
Judging from the amount of hoops LKB laid out months ago for me to jump through to abolish Gun Control it would be a cold day in hell before LKB would say what I said about Gun Control in an email I just sent to a handful of my state Gun Control zealots.
If Gun Owners want to abolish Gun Control they will have to rise above do-it-for-me and constantly complain about Gun Control and its Rot like Black Americans complained about Slavery, Jim Crow, Lynching, etc. Think Grassroots people Think.
“Judging from the amount of hoops LKB laid out months ago for me to jump through to abolish Gun Control…”
In the USA, who wins lawsuits is far less about who is right and who is wrong. It’s who plays the smarter game. The system is loaded full of arcane rules that make little sense to those ignorant of them, like you or I, Deborah.
That’s the way it is, full stop. He knows how to play that game, we don’t. With just one misstep, we could have lost our rights for decades.
To just blithely ignore such advice is beyond foolish. The stakes are far too high.
Do you tell your surgeon how to do his/her job in the OR? No, only a fool would… 🙁
“To just blithely ignore such advice is beyond foolish.”
Indeed. It is merely common sense, having considered the words of an expert, to allow him his hocus-pocus.
What state are you in Debbie? Just have been curious, though i have a sneaky suspicion that you’re not the type to divulge that information online
What get more actual results: e-mailing a screed to “a handful of my state gun control zealots,” or working with groups like FPC to actually DO SOMETHING to stop those unconstitutional laws from being enforced via litigation? Or perhaps taking the time to help educate the 2A community about how the system actually works, so that its members can make their own, more informed choices on how they might effectively help in the fight?
Public interest 2-A litigation is slow, time consuming, messy, expensive, and requires professionals who know what they are doing. But it can work (and post-Bruen, it is getting new results seemingly every month), as the track record of FPC and similar organizations proves in spades.
But what does sending e-mails proclaiming the racist roots of gun control to the antis accomplish? Do you think it going to change their minds? Are they magically going to have a revelation that beliefs that they are strongly invested in are wrong? Or are they just going to delete it after reading the first sentence.
Pray tell what actual results your actions have achieved . . . or are likely to achieve, beyond whatever dopamine hit you may get from sending it?
Getting results requires taking steps that actually can do something. Litigation — when done right — is one such angle. But getting courts to actually do what you want means fighting smart and using the rules of the game to your advantage.
And therein is the rub with GSL’s move here. The lawsuit was a smart move, and it’s lawyers have started out strong. But what benefit did the “Freedom Week” campaign generate, other than whatever satisfaction GSL got from taunting the state (and the courts)? And did that “benefit” (whatever it was) justify or outweigh what this old litigator knows will be a negative reaction by the people who are and will be sitting in judgment on the case?
“But what does sending e-mails proclaiming the racist roots of gun control to the antis accomplish? Do you think it going to change their minds?”
Alinsky Rule 8
Make the Dims defend their actions, by turning their own history (and current motives) against them.
Educate the tens of millions of legal gun owners who don’t know the history of gun control; there are always newcomers to the pro-2A movement who need to read/hear the message.
By all means educate everyone of the history. Not disputing that.
But how do you actually apply Alinsky Rule 8, to make the anti’s confront a history that they conveniently ignore as inconvenient? Methinks that requires either litigation or legislative action.
Deb’s constant denigration of 2A public interest lawsuits — which *DO* get results — based on her magical thinking that just pointing out such history somehow will cause the laws on the books to evaporate is delusional.
“Make the Dims defend their actions, by turning their own history (and current motives) against them.”
Their current motives don’t match their own history. Conflating the two make people sound stupid by not being able to identify and fight against what is CURRENTLY happening in the courts and legislatures.
It gets tons more of these items into “common use”. It lets people prepare for what may be to come.
I know you are an attorney, and so that is your orientation, mindset, and focus. Indeed, it is probably not permissible for you to contemplate extra legal situations, let alone advocate for them.
The mind set out here in blue collar and white collar work a day life is that we very well may have to move to the 4th box in the old saying, and soon. Lots of stuff is coming; there is no national injunction in the brace situation, or on 80%s, and the clock is ticking loudly. Many states, including Illinois, are facing their own battles. Many of us believe we may run out of time and have to make a final decision on compliance or non compliance soon.
The left has shown us clearly that have no respect for the law, and no intention to honor it. Bruen and other decisions are clear, and yet in many states and Federally they intentionally flout it. If we do respect and obey the law and they don’t we will lose everything. Violently.
This tells them the seriousness of our conviction, and the absolute end of their actions if they persist.
Personally I’d like to send emails to the legislators here in Colorado telling them how I look forward to the Supreme Court slapping them upside the heads for their Unconditional bills just signed into law by the pole smoking Polis. I think my time however would be better used sending some cash to the people hard at work trying to reconstitute our Rights no matter how good it would make me feel to slam them.
“Pray tell what actual results…”
I’m with LKB on this, 95%. The other 5 recognizes an element of comic relief.
So, “loud and proud” vs. “surprise and overwhelming force”.
No war like a civil war.
“No war like a civil war.”
“Friendly fire, isn’t. 🙁 ”
(Someone with personal war experience.)
He has direct, personal experience in federal appellate law, that we don’t.
I’d hate to lose hard-won gains by dancing in the end-zone too early… 🙁
Anytime you piss off left gun-grabbers, it’s a GOOD THING!
Open carry was legal in California before the ‘grabbers got freaked-out by the Black Panthers publicly and loudly doing so… 🙁
Doesn’t frenzied buying just put more items at risk of being illegal to own/use? Is that a good financial tactic?
It IS in a civil war!🙄
“It IS in a civil war!🙄”
True, but there ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou.
The founders would not be proud of their offspring. We’ve waited too very long. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy1 were the wake-up calls, and the nation slept.
grandfather clause. not to mention you can’t be non- compliant without that which is newly not allowed.
John…from your article, immediately following your supportive statement about h0m0sexuals and their campaign to advance their rights, you say this in the next sentence:
“Many gun owners in America, face similar bigotry, prejudice, and stereotypes from gun-haters…”
I have to wince at your attempt to equate my Christian beliefs supporting male-female relationships (that happen to be the way every single one of us came into existence, along with all our ancestors going back to the beginning of time) with “bigotry, prejudice, and hate”. If you choose to support a lifestyle (that by its very definition is self-extincting), and whose participants are now aggressively forcing onto children in our libraries and schools, that’s your prerogative. But to label those who disagree with that agenda as “haters” is poor form.
I hate no one. I see every person as being made in the God’s image, and therefore inherently valuable. But I cannot support all behaviors. That is not hate; that is discernment.
…made in God’s image…
I initially wrote “image of God” but edited it and apparently didn’t delete the word “the”.
“But I cannot support all behaviors. That is not hate; that is discernment.”
Now, you’ve stepped in it.
So, let me be the first: Anyone who disagrees with me, about anything, anytime, is guilty of hate speech. If you do not line up with my views, theories, behaviors, I will call on government to not only force you to align, but make you like it.
Umm…not quite sure what your intention is with this one, Sammy. Looks incoherent. You wanna try typing again?
What is incoherent about it?
I am master of the universe. If you challenge me, I will run screaming to government to have you re-educated as to how opposition to me and my standards is hateful, ungood belly feel, and hateful.
“You will be assimilated; resistance is futile.” (is it “futile”, or “few-tile”?)
Samuel is playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’ quite effectively, again, Haz…
Lifestyle wars have a history of being downright vicious- it’s just that now it’s not as one-sided as it used to be. The religious lifestyle has nowhere near the monopoly that it used to have…
As a fellow Christian, I do not know if the author supports homersectuality or not. But I think the intent of his statements was not to support the lifestyle, but to point out the success of the strategy they employed. Whatever happens, we need to win in public opinion. We need to people to know us, to know we exist, and to know we are just like everyone else. We need non gun people to say “I know Haz, I know Crimson. They aren’t criminals, they aren’t bad people. They shouldn’t be put upon by government and law enforcement when they aren’t doing anything wrong.” The courts are relevant, but they are not the only front in this war.
I remember vividly the situation in the 90’s, as the 94 AWB was coming, and then passed. We had little information, we all thought we were a minority. We were afraid to talk about guns with anyone we weren’t certain was already on the same page. People talk about the US being less polarized back then, but I do not remember it that way.
I hear homosexuals talk about how it used to be for them, older ones who actually experienced it, and it sounds exactly what I remember going through regarding guns in 92 and 93. And I was in Texas, one of the most pro gun states culturally. That’s when we coined the term “Fudd” to describe hunters who did not support gun rights beyond hunting. I think if we had been more open, and out there back then, and had engaged in the campaigns of contacting and visiting legislators, and public information campaigns that we do now, the 94 AWB might never have happened.
In the mid 2000s I was elated when the spread and advancement of technology lead me to realize that I was not alone, not in a minority, and that millions of others held similar interests and beliefs and were in a similar situation.
I will not be quiet, I will not go back into the closet. I will not ever again be afraid to talk about guns, and gun rights any time, anywhere, with anyone. I will advocate disobedience, both civil and non civil, against any and all infringements on our rights.
LKB can fight the battles on his front and I will fight the battles on my front. They are not the same, even if the end goal is the same.
Thank you for all you do MR. Boch!!
Freedom week in America, oh that’s funny.
Freedom in America, that’s even funnier.
Not until the Powers That Be adhere to the Constitution will we have freedom in America, and that ain’t going to happen.
Oo, lawyers that disagree on how to handle something. Tell me something I don’t know.
Can anyone tell me why the communist state of Illinoisistan STILL has the FOID card in use. And uses it against law abiding gun owners vis the ISP home visits ?
FOID was shown to be unconstitutional several yrs ago, yet still in place. Too many egos. Too much unwillingness to do the right thing when it becomes difficult.
Me thinks some (many?) lawyers deserve some of the lawyer jokes that exist.
One of the worst things that can happen to a human is that they get comfortable.
It is in fact a blessing to never have a “normal” day.
“FOID was shown to be unconstitutional several yrs ago, yet still in place.”
Can anyone who knows comment on why this is so?
it’s in the works.
the last statement i saw from boch (days ago) was that he expects it to be turned down in a few months.
It’s called Freedom, Right?
freedom is being twelve when we were twelve.
The question isn’t whether filing suit and fighting hard in public is warranted; it is. Indeed, I’ve long advocated turning things up several notches post-Bruen, by going after state officials personally for civil rights violations, a-la the lawsuit Alan Gotlieb and others have just filed against the Washington AG.
The question is whether an end zone dance in the first quarter, while taunting the refs, is a smart move. Do you really think the judges on Seventh Circuit — even those who are sympathetic to your position — are going to look kindly on litigants literally publicly talking about gaming the system like this?
Was the decision to play this card based on advancing your litigation strategy? If not, then why do it?
The filing / venue strategy for this case was well executed, as was the motion for a preliminary injunction, and it paid off with a great opinion that is going to be a heavy lift for the other side to overturn. Why in the world would you compromise that position?
LKB, thanks for participating in this forum and offering your expertise. I always read your comments and find value in them.
Question: have there been incidences where a court used the actions of gun owners or organizations during the legal process to declare a restrictive decision? What would be the legal justification? The organizations promoting “Freedom Week” aren’t advocating anything illegal, or is that relevant?
As has been noted by another commentator above, after Judge Benitez nuked various California anti-gun laws pre-Bruen, he refused to stay his permanent injunction, resulting in a window of opportunity wherein California residents could buy stuff that was formerly banned. After folks started celebrating and companies announced they were sending in big shipments to California to take advantage of it, the California AG used those announcements as a basis for his motion for a stay pending appeal . . . which was granted.
Now, those actions promoting a “freedom week” weren’t being trumpeted by the plaintiffs, and candidly the Ninth Circuit was likely to grant a stay anyway. Here, there is a much better chance that on a straight-up record, CTA7 might well decide that a stay isn’t warranted (especially given ACB’s order earlier this week in the Napierville AWB appeal).
But having a *litigant* crow publicly about gaming the system in the short run doesn’t strike me as helping achieve that result. It makes even less sense considering that they could have achieved whatever “benefit” their campaign might accomplish through other means.
no system is being gamed. making people aware of an opportunity they might not have been aware of.
and for mwnn above, geoff’s example of open carry in california leading to the mulford act.
Why does one need to modify their 1st Amendment right to “save” their 2nd Amendment right? We’ve been doing that for 55 years, since the FOID started so we wouldn’t offend anyone, and it has accomplished nothing. It was that tactic of appeasement that got us to where we are today. Our state organization felt it was necessary to appease Democrats to “get a seat at the table” to negotiate for our civil rights. If the 7th Circuit issues a stay because of what one person said then we are in far deeper excrement than previously thought.
Just because you CAN exercise your First Amendment rights doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so.
Let’s try it this way. Assume you’re in a lawsuit. Court rules against you on a preliminary matter, but says it’s a close call that will be revisited later in the case.
You of course have a First Amendment right to take to the airwaves and publicly berate the judge as stupid, in the tank for the other side, etc.
But does it make any sense to do so? Of course not, as it’s likely counterproductive to your objective: to win the lawsuit. (And if I’m your attorney, I’m going to tell you to either knock if off or find a new attorney.)
And that’s my point here — GSL’s campaign doesn’t advance it’s litigation position, and likely weakens it. Taunting the judges deciding your case is never a good idea.
LKB, I’m not leaning one way or another on what we’re discussing here, but are you saying judges are not honorable, objective people who only sit in judgement of the law without letting thier personal feelings bleed over into thier judgements? You and I both know this is often not true,we all know they’re human with subjective understanding of things. As a lawyer, I’m sure you have had to massage many judicial egos in order to get what you were working toward.They should be, again, disintersted parties judging the law, not subjectively opining on it. I would assume most good judges have fairly thick skins (not the whiny activist ones who try to legislate from the bench), so while your point of proper decorum is reasonable, and we do have to try each case on its own circumstances, we should give the office of judge at least a modicum of respect, even though we know the office holders are many times far from respectable. The other side of the coin, stand up for what is in fact right and good – no end zone dances, ageed, but don’t muzzle your dog if you want him to defend you.
“But how do you actually apply Alinsky Rule 8…”
– Challenge the anti-gunners with their own language; destroy their moral high ground
– Get people to understand the historical reality.
– Get the word out to people (newcomers to TTAG) who are not informed of the history.
– Use the history to energize people to take an interest in fighting the gun laws by piquing their outrage at the root of gun controls.
Point the newly energized to various pro-2A organizations who attack the anti-gun owners via law suites.
Agitate, scream and shout, loud and proud. Being polite and safe is not how the civil rights movement prevailed. The leaders of the “movement” were not shy of touting their cause, and their victories, without regard to how judges felt about the civil rights campaigns.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But in our shop, if it’s too squeaky, or has been squeaking for too long, it is replaced, and thrown onto the scrap heap to be turned into soup cans.
Apparently the injunction has been stayed by the 7th.
LEGAL ALERT: The Seventh Circuit has stayed the preliminary injunction against Illinois’ “assault weapon” and magazine bans “pending further order of the court.” The court also requested a response to Illinois’ motion by 5/9:
“The Seventh Circuit has stayed the preliminary injunction against Illinois’ “assault weapon” and magazine bans “ ”
Noted the 7th did not cite Heller, McDonald, Heller, Bruen as precidents (?) bearing on the stay of district court injunction.
Or did I misunderstand?
The link I posted is all I have seen about it so far. Don’t know if it was a three judge panel or what.
“Don’t know if it was a three judge panel or what.”
Think usually 3-judge is the first go.
Kostas Moros has posted more:
Why even have Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Law back in effect for now until the Appellate court can review the State’s brief and our oppositions.
“One judged placed an administrative stay on the injunction, that’s pretty definitive!”
Rob Roman replied:
The same judge who wrote the opinion in Friedman
“Their current motives don’t match their own history.”
Seems the motive remains the same: deny natural, human, and civil rights to a disfavored segment of the population. The Dims of today love to shout “rasisisis” to squelch free speech. The Dims promote racism through gun control laws, as they have historically done. Draw the comparison.
“Was the GSL end zone dance and ref taunting a contributing factor?”
In the 7th? They are spring loaded to prosper gun control, why would the judges even pay attention to the actions of gun owners?
I noticed the court did not demand the state justify its request, but that the plaintiffs justify theirs.
While it’s nowhere as friendly a forum as the Fifth, Eighth, or Eleventh Circuits, I’m not sure the Seventh is as “loaded” as the First, Second, Ninth, and DC Circuits. Recall that ACB used to be on the Seventh Circuit.
But anytime you publicly taunt a court like GSL did here, you increase the odds of this happening. Totally unnecessary and in my opinion downright stupid.
GSL is being represented by some excellent attorneys whose battle plan for this test case appear to have been well thought out. It needs to listen to them.
“While it’s nowhere as friendly a forum as the Fifth, Eighth, or Eleventh Circuits, I’m not sure the Seventh is as “loaded” as the First, Second, Ninth, and DC Circuits.”
When an appeals court judge references his own “interest-balancing” district court opinion as superior to Bruen….think we gotta call that “spring loaded” to the anti-2A position.
One judge, yes. The entire court, not so much.
“One judge, yes. The entire court, not so much.”
The thrust of the reporting is that a single judge stopped the injunction (kinda strange, that), not a 3 panel, or en banc panel. And that single judge overturned/removed the injunction.
If, indeed, a single judge cannot overturn/reverse an injunction, at least three two (of three) initial appeals judges must have agreed with the reversal, and the reasoning and instructions regarding the “stay” of injunction.
One circuit judge can grant a short administrative stay while the motion to stay is under consideration. Unless the Seventh Circuit IOP’s (Internal Operating Procedures) have some weird gimmick, the actual stay motion goes to a three judge panel.
Having said that, Easterbrook’s order is just plain whacky.
“Having said that, Easterbrook’s order is just plain whacky.”
Could a circuit court judge “game” the system, ruling in a way that forces the matter immediately to the SC, in order to obtain a harsh reprimand that includes all the lower courts, and results in an even wider, more forceful ruling from the SC?
Or are we seeing the first signs of a complete breakdown in the federal courts?
Again, this order only (1) grants a short administrative stay (not uncommon or unusual), and (2) orders the parties to address specific cases in the response to the motion to stay (which is indeed wacky for that kind of order, but ultimately stands for nothing more than Easterbrook is willing to ignore Bruen).
It’s bizarre, but so is Easterbrook. I don’t like it, but I certainly don’t think it portends the breakdown of the judicial system. I strongly suspect saner heads will prevail on the Seventh Circuit, and if not SCOTUS will step in.
“I strongly suspect saner heads will prevail on the Seventh Circuit, and if not SCOTUS will step in.”
Always appreciate the interchange; thanks again.