Big court news keeps piling up. Good news for gun owners. And reason enough for Kwame Raoul to order more booze and pot by the pallet for his 447ish-strong legal team, because they’re gonna need it to try to cope with the avalanche of bad news headed their way. And judging by some of their lawyering of late, they’ve already been, ahem, extra mellow while writing and formulating legal strategy.

Yes, it’s Saturday night but here are some things that may directly impact all of us here in Illinois and you might as well as read about it sooner rather than later. Reason number eleventy thousand why you should visit GSL regularly for updates and analysis.

Let’s start with the marijuana, move to the “restraining order” ban on firearms and move to how all this affects gun owners in the Land of Lincoln. Also, please share this info with your friends and neighbors – and share it on social media outlets if you’re there as well.

In Oklahoma, a case came down where a judge ruled that a blanket prohibition on gun ownership for marijuana users was unconstitutional under the Bruen “text, history and tradition” standard. Yes, the decision will likely be appealed, but expect it to be upheld.

Illinois doesn’t have such a ban currently, but JB Pritzker’s new gun ban will effectively shut off acquisition of firearms for MJ users effective July 1, 2023. Of course, by the first of July, it remains a pretty safe bet that the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” will find itself in the same dustbin of history that includes laws mandating school segregation and bans on concealed carry in public.

Don’t take my word for it on the marijuana ruling. Here it is from Reuters via US News.

(Reuters) – A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison’s “mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm.”

He said using marijuana was “not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act,” and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.

“The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” Wyrick wrote.

Next up: restraining orders and gun prohibitions.

From the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a ruling that says gun prohibitions found in restraining orders is unconstitutional. From the AP.

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the government can’t stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns — the latest domino to fall after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority set new standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws.

A certifiable bad guy had a gun and the state charged him with having a gun while subject to a restraining order.  Long story short, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the ban on firearms possession by those subject to domestic violence restraining orders is unconstitutional.

What’s that mean in plain English? Illinois’ Red Flag law will soon be joining school segregation laws in the dustbin of shameful history, along with bans on concealed carry and the “Protect Illinois Communities Act.” Particularly the ex parte aspect of these “emergency” orders where select people can make accusations without any due process.

Along those lines, there’s the “Clear and Present Danger” aspect of Illinois gun law where the Illinois State Police can arbitrarily, and without a lick of due process to the accused, revoke a person’s Second Amendment rights. “Clear and Present Danger” is ripe to be plucked from the poisonous “unconstitutional” tree and ground into dust.

Example of “Clear and Present Danger?” How about the Decatur Police officer, shot in the line of duty, getting a letter from ISP revoking her FOID card over a “Clear and Present Danger” issue. What was it?  She sought out inpatient treatment for an eating disorder when she was in college many years before.

What’s more, the automatic suspension of FOID cards for those subject to any court order is also unconstitutional.

Let’s face it, the standard for evaluating gun laws in court is no longer a “balancing test” where courts could consider the state’s interests against the individual right. Nope. It’s now text, history and tradition.

What’s coming next?

Wow, it will likely be a BIG week in court news in the coming week or two. What’s coming:

** The judge in the Macon County action brought by Dan Caulkins will most certainly release his decision on the motion for a temporary restraining order. Caulkins’ suit is asking for injunctive relief for the entire state. Kwame’s unimpressive junior assistant attorney general (and part-time barista from Starbucks?) didn’t do such a hot job in court last Friday.

** The judge in Naperville held a hearing Friday involving Law Weapons seeking a TRO against Pritzker’s Gun Ban in Naperville. The City of Naperville passed an ordinance banning the sale of modern semi-automatic rifles and the magazines that feed them. Robert Bevis, owner of Law Weapons, sued to block the ordinance.  He got a TRO initially, and has since filed another suit seeking to block enforcement of Pritzker’s new gun ban law in his town. The hearing went, ahem, poorly for the City of Naperville.  Kwame Raoul didn’t even send one of his 447 attorneys (three of his 450 quit about two weeks ago…  more may have bailed since then) to defend the “state’s interests.”  More top notch lawyering from our top notch attorney general.  (Cough.)

Naperville is getting pro bono representation from the (Democrat Party’s unofficial?) law firm of Perkins Coie.  In my opinion, Naperville has gotten exactly what they’ve paid for in terms of service. But then again, defending the indefensible isn’t easy. Just imagine being an attorney trying to argue the “benefits” of segregating schools after Brown v. Board of Education came down in the 1950s!

Here’s the transcript from the hearing. It would surprise nobody if the judge blocked Pritzker’s crown gun control jewel this coming week in that case.

** The Illinois Gun Rights Alliance (the coalition Guns Save Life has joined, which includes FFL-IL, the Aurora Sportsmen’s Club, State Line Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Law Center and others including Todd Vandermyde) will file our motion for temporary injunctive relief in federal court.  This will block enforcement of the Illinois gun ban for everyone across the state.

We expect to easily get that order within a week or two given how the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made it clear they understand the “text, history and tradition” test in Bruen explicitly and how they intend to implement it faithfully.

Kwame better hire someone at least marginally competent to represent Illinois or this will go down as a(nother) big loss for a big dummy named Kwame.

** We await a ruling in Guns Save Life’s facial challenge on the constitutionality of the FOID Act. Yes, Guns Save Life long ago filed to challenge the FOID Act and the courts (Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Kelly), moving the the speed of smell (thank you Ron White) have finally arrived at what will likely be the scene of the crash for Kwame Raoul.  Briefs are in for two rounds more than yours truly expected and a decision is likely before the end of February.


What else is on the horizon? Potentially the prohibition on non-violent felons from possessing firearms.

Todd Vandermyde on his Freedom’s Steel YouTube channel talks about some of these issues.  PRO TIP: If you want to keep up to speed, subscribe to his channel and watch his updates. He does an exceptional job analyzing court actions and legislative issues.  He’s not one of these “guntubers” who dispense dubious recommendations coupled with clickbait titles trying to make a few bucks as an “influencer.”

Again, please share this info with your friends and neighbors – and share it on social media outlets if you’re there as well.

AND JOIN US IN PERSON in our fun, entertaining and exciting regional grassroots meetings. Coming this week:

MONDAY: Sangamon County at SCHEELS.
TUESDAY: Pontiac at the Pontiac Sportsmen’s Club
WEDNESDAY: Northwest Chicagoland at Golden Corral in Arlington Heights. ** Meeting program will begin here around 6pm.
THURSDAY NORTH: LaSalle County at Jamie’s Outpost in Utica
THURSDAY SOUTH: Charleston at Unique Banquet Center in Charleston.

6 thoughts on “KWAME NEEDS TO ORDER MORE BOOZE, POT FOR HIS STAFF: Marijuana-, Orders of Protection-related decisions released, Illinois gun ban decisions coming”
  1. LOL to quote my grandchildren. Can someone please pass me some tissue? I’m getting all weepy. Maybe Kwame could ask for some donations for marijuana from his constituency.

  2. I bet he could do pretty well for himself asking for donations for people he should be investigating and prosecuting for corruption. I think I remember reading Illinois is the most corrupt state in the nation in terms of indictments issues by the feds. Of course indictments from the Illinois Attorney General’s office are few and far between when it comes to corruption.

    1. Someone who is corrupt charging another with corruption?
      Wouldn’t that be called hypocrisy?

  3. Will be interested to see how this all shakes out on the state cases. I am hopeful that the Macon County judge issues the TRO for statewide, especially since it will be very difficult for petitioners (like me) to prove to online resellers that we can again buy guns and magazines – which I fully intend to do. The TRO must apply to the entire state.
    I was thinking the same thing about the Red Flag laws as soon as the 5th handed down their ruling on Protective Orders. In the light of the Bruen decision, there is no possible way the state can apply a pre-emptive standard to ANY gun control now. The state must prove their arguments to a much higher standard under Bruen, or they are simply unconstitutional. You cannot ban someone from owning guns or magazines because of a presumption of what they MIGHT do in the future. The least restrictive standard must apply using the historical test of Bruen as the baseline.
    Bruen was said to be the ruling that would destroy gun control in America. It is turning out to be that, and more. The Federal judiciary has been applying a strict Bruen test to all of these recent gun cases, and it is rolling back laws that have been in place for a long time. Soon, we will use it to go after NFA34 and GCA68 themselves.

    1. No – just an ignorant leftist toolbag. He couldn’t find the ground if he was skydiving.

Comments are closed.