Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The US Supreme Court announced Tuesday that several Illinois cases seeking a writ of certiorari to the court have been distributed to members of the court for a May 16th conference. This is the first sign that the members of the court might take action to remedy a legal insurrection taking place at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last fall, a three-judge panel of the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to ignore the Heller and Bruen SCOTUS decisions. The panel held that Land of Lincoln’s gun and magazine ban is likely constitutional under a new “kissin’ cousins” test they dreamed up. What is the “Kissin’ Cousins” test? In so many words, if it looks like a gun the military uses then it can be regulated or banned.

The Center Square has the story:

Cases challenging gun and magazine bans, including several lawsuits from Illinois, have been distributed for an upcoming conference of the U.S. Supreme Court.

After Illinois banned more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities in January 2023, federal lawsuits were filed. Appeals of separate preliminary actions against the law were shot down by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last year. Plaintiffs in February asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court moved several Illinois cases, and one challenging Maryland’s ban, to conference for May 16, 2024.

“It’s very significant because we’ve been trying very hard to get a case to the Supreme Court dealing with these issues and I think now we’re going to get there,” the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb told The Center Square.

Gottlieb expects if the court does take the cases, they will be consolidated.

“The end of the month is realistic to find out,” he said. “And, it may happen in June.”

As the executive director of Guns Save Life, one of the plaintiffs challenging Illinois’ so-called “Protect Illinois Communities Act” gun and magazine ban, I couldn’t be more delighted. Short of having our writ of certiorari accepted and placed on the calendar, this is the next best thing. It certainly beats having our appeals turned away!

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

31 COMMENTS

  2. Crazy to look at a statewide county red/blue map. Mostly red, yet overwhelming democrap elected officials.
    Appropriate slogan for Illinois is,
    “Vote early, and vote often!”

  3. For the love of all that is good and decent: will someone please file an amicus brief and remind the U.S. Supreme Court that the Miller decision protects firearms which are or could be useful to militias and the military?

    That alone should strike-down laws on suppressors, the arbitrary “short-barreled ________) category, ALL semi-auto firearms, and even full-auto firearms.

    • That Alone? When And if Gun Control falls it will be by its History grasshopper. That requires good and decent people opening their mouths to stand against an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.

    • Exactly this. Using Miller is the basis for ending the NFA and all of the ridiculous discussions about military style. All arms are dual purpose and “military” style. Even the common use test is completely flawed. The introductory statement of the 2nd Amendment was justly and properly interpreted in 1939. That all arms of efficacy to the military are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment for the militia and the People.

  5. “This is the first sign that the members of the court might take action to remedy a legal insurrection taking place at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.”

    About. Fvcking. Time.

    I just hope Thomas, et. al is as tired of the circuit court bullshit as we are.

    Here’s to hoping a decision as far-reaching as ‘Bruen’ was. Make them pay for their arrogance and insolence…

  7. Well damn here I thought NY or CA would be the next SCOTUS gun ruling and IL has taken the lead. Time to read up on the issues involved and where we have overlap.

  9. Not going to get my hopes up a about those skackers at SCOTUS getting off of their privileged butts and protecting the RKBA any time soon.

    Weak Tea gonna Weak.

    • “…about those skackers at SCOTUS getting off of their privileged butts and protecting the RKBA any time soon.”

      Seriously, get over yourself. You would have preferred Hillary seating Scalia’s seat?

  10. The primary procedural issues in all of these five or six cases is that not one of them, as far as I know, have gotten to a final judgment on the merits. The Supreme Cort has been quite reticent to intervene in any case that has not been finally ruled upon by the Circuit Court of Appeals or the State’s highest court.

    One of the lead cases is the Maryland case, challenging an AR ban. This case has a long procedural history, but if I recall correctly, this has been up once before, reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of Bruen. When it got back the three judge panel, the scuttlebutt was that the panel (on which sat two Republicans) was likely to overturn the law, over the dissent of a very vocal third member. Surprise surprise, the en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit snagged the case before an opinion was issued. It has been argued but no decision has been issued. Case is Bianchi v. Frost.
    Illinois has uniformly upheld its AR ban, the decisions the the Seventh Circuit (which must have changed composition since it forced shall issue down the throats of Illinois legislatures) are quite informative as to the extreme measures that have been taken to eliminate ARs and AKs. See e.g. GOA v. Raoul. There are several thers, but they are all interlocutory appeals. There is some suggestion that the circuit courts have been sandbagging the rulings in these cases as long as possible to prevent or at lease delay SCOTUS review. One of the key factors in these cases is their contention that plaintiffs have to show more than that a firearm falls within the scope of the 2A, they also have to show that the particular firearm is “in common usage.” A few has gone so far as to declare, without authority or any particular knowledge of firearms, that any firearm that is suitable for use by the military is subject to state regulation and may be banned. This conclusion ignores Miller v. Us as well as a long tradition of soldiers from the time of the founding until the Second World War to take their rifles with them when they are discharged from service there is no historical distinction between “military arms” and civilian arms during the relevant historical period defined by the Court.

    In summary, these cases still not having final judgments are not well poised for a grant of review under SCOTUS’ internal operating procedures. But at the same time, the Court must be aware that there are particular circuits (the usual suspects) who are hell bent on redefining the “Heller/Bruen” test to allow for them to express their bias against these arms and the large capacity magazines used with them. The qustion is whether it will allow this sore to continue to fester.

    • “In summary, these cases still not having final judgments are not well poised for a grant of review under SCOTUS’ internal operating procedures. But at the same time, the Court must be aware that there are particular circuits (the usual suspects) who are hell bent on redefining the “Heller/Bruen” test to allow for them to express their bias against these arms and the large capacity magazines used with them.”

      Since Thomas, et, al have made noises they expect their rulings be obeyed, here’s to hoping the nice black man carries out his threat and burns their sorry asses…

  14. stop giving me a pop up to feed you my email address on every single article on this page

    • Vacate the legitimacy of state level laws and remove the authority of those to enforce them. If they still don’t care then game on it whatever form it may take and sucks to be someone like me working for the government.

Comments are closed.