U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall does a really good job playing the female version of Sgt. Schultz. “I know nothing! I see nothing!” And upon reading her decision carefully, it’s clear she’s trying to overturn the Bruen decision from last summer.
The slow-witted federal jurist is about to feel the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ clue-bat. It isn’t her place to overturn SCOTUS decisions, particularly 6-3 decisions.
Yes, she ruled that the new Illinois Firearms Ban Act is legal and “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
But more troubling, she tries to essentially twist herself into a pretzel starting on page 13 with how the Bruen decision doesn’t mean what it says or say what it means. Instead, she writes:
The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly “dangerous” weapons are unprotected.
Sorry, sweetheart. That flies in the face of countless court decisions.
And she tries to use laws in the Colonial period against carrying of clubs as justification for gun bans today.
We predict an epic slapdown of Judge Kendell’s unsound ruling, which relies on the 2-step balancing test that was struck down under the Bruen decision.
Yes, there are good judges and there are bad judges. And then there are judges who just don’t bother to read caselaw. But it makes for great headlines for desperate media outlets who need to sell newspapers and attract clicks and viewers.
Kendall wrote:
“Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition.”
Sorry Virginia. It doesn’t matter how dangerous the weapons are. SCOTUS has already covered that… and I might add, remanded bad cases back to lower courts who continue to apply the two-step balancing test which is dead letter “law” now.
Lil’ Ginny drink the magical Kool-Aid that the second-rate attorney from Perkins Coie offered.
Her written opinion borders on unhinged and rightfully calls into question her judicial temperament to serve.
From the Sun-Times:
A federal judge in Chicago has denied a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Illinois’ assault weapons ban and a similar ordinance in Naperville.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall ruled Friday that both Illinois and Naperville’s bans on selling assault weapons are “constitutionally sound.”
Lawyers for the National Association for Gun Rights and Robert Bevis, who owns a gun store in Naperville, sought the temporary restraining order and injunction as a part of their lawsuit trying to stop the bans.
They argued it is “impossible” for the new state gun law and a similar Naperville ordinance to meet the burden under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was decided last summer.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled governments must show that gun regulations are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
“Because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons and high-capacity magazines are particularly dangerous weapon accessories, their regulation accords with history and tradition,” Kendall wrote in her ruling.
“Naperville and Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale, and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales,” the judge wrote.
While the lawsuit is one of a number of challenges facing Illinois’ ban, Kendall’s decision appears to be the first from a federal judge considering whether the ban comports with the Bruen decision.
She didn’t stop there…
“The text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms, and history and tradition demonstrate that particularly ‘dangerous’ weapons are unprotected,” Kendall wrote.
Well, sometimes you can’t fix stupid. But you can make it hurt with humiliation when you strike down their garbage opinions and tell them to try again using the procedures set out by Bruen.
Here’s her ruling.
Comments are closed.