Gun grabbers know they’re going to lose in court trying to defend Illinois’ new gun and magazine ban (and registration scheme).  And they are right.

And now, just days after enactment, both the anti-gun Democratic operatives with bylines at the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune have prepared the battlespace for a defeat in court.  Think of it as cushioning for the inevitable decision blocking the law’s implementation.

Illinois’ sweeping firearms ban certain to end up in court, and some experts doubt it will stand
(Chicago Tribune) – In his closing remarks before a vote on a sweeping firearms ban, Illinois Senate President Don Harmon pushed back at critics who contended the prohibitions would violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Oak Park Democrat concluded with a message for Republican lawmakers and other opponents of the measure, which was passed in response to the deadly mass shooting at Highland Park’s Fourth of July parade: “We’ll see you in court…”

[Rabidly anti-gun UCLA School of Law professor Adam Winkler] “The law (in Illinois) is going to be challenged, and there is a good chance it will be overturned…”

Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, said the bill contained several provisions that were “clearly unconstitutional” on their face.

Why Illinois’ new assault weapons ban might not hold up in court
(Sun-Times) – Illinois’ new assault weapons ban is only days old, but it’s already on uncertain legal footing.

Republican lawmakers and gun shop owners say so. But so do constitutional law scholars.


Brace yourself for the coming caterwauling when a temporary restraining order blocks implementation of the gun ban.

And then the epic howling when a permanent injunction comes along.

7 thoughts on “PREPPING THE BATTLESPACE: Trib, Sun-Times do the unthinkable… Hint the Pritzker Gun Ban ‘might not’ stand court scrutiny”
  1. Both behind paywalls. Ain’t paying to read their bilge. If true then they know this law is destined for the shredder. So much for their pronouncements that it is constitutional, huh.

    1. They all knew it is unconstitutional when they were writing it, the senate president stated “see you in court” as he was sending it to “jelly-belly” the Prikster. They are trying to appease the rabid anti-gun special interest crowd who will probably inflame the streets with antifa-black-lies-matter “mostly peaceful protesters” when the courts reject it.
      Ban Assault politicians, not America’s favorite rifles! God, Bless and keep America strong!

  2. What is likelihood?

    Extremely high. SCOTUS has already GVR’d cases involving gun and mag bans back to lower courts at the same time they released the Bruen decision last summer. GVR is “Granted Certiori” (meaning they accepted the appeal to hear it, something that isn’t done 99.5% of the time), Vacated the lower court decision (in this case holding that mag bans and gun bans were permissible), and Remanded the case back to the lower courts for a redo, following the parameters put forth in the Bruen decision.

    We expect to get the Temporary Restraining Order at the District Court level.

    But even if it doesn’t happen, we can appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a recent case (Atkisson?) the 7th’s chief justice said that “the Second Amendment has gone from a Second Class Right to a Supercharged right.” Another justice remarked how Bruen had completely reset the playing field in evaluating 2A claims in cases. THEY GET IT.

    But even if they reject our request for a TRO, we can to the SCOTUS.
    Amy Coney Barrett is our justice. Even if she refuses our request, we can then pick a justice to appeal to… and who do you think that might be, hmmm?

    I don’t see Thomas rejecting our request for a TRO and allowing this new law to stand after he authored that decision last summer.
    But your mileage may vary.


  3. I saw this posted on another site: “ I still say the best way to STOP! these gun grabbers in the State Legislatures is to file Contempt Citations against each and every one that voted for these measures as well as the Governors who sign them. If you hit them in the pocketbook it will wake them up.” Anyone know what this entails and/or what it can do?

Comments are closed.