Today marked the long-awaiting oral arguments in the four big challenges to the gun and magazine ban signed into law by Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker on January 10th.  A couple of big observations:  First and foremost this was a huge, high-profile case and guess who was nowhere to be found:  Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

If Kwame thought he was gonna win this fight, he would have participated in the oral arguments to wear that participation as a feather in his cap after he won the case.  Instead, he was nowhere to be found.  And he only sent one attorney to argue of the 450 in his office.  Indicating that 449 of them weren’t exactly up to the task of arguing in support of this evil law in a court of law.

What else?  The hearing took the better part of 3.5 hours, almost twice what the judge indicated early on in the proceedings.  Again, most of that time was consumed by the state getting lots of probative questions about their briefs and their arguments.

Folks can read Greg Bishop’s live-streaming of tweets from the courtroom during the proceeding here.

Here are some posts that should resonate with most folks.


I’ll have a double of whatever Mr. Wells is drinking.  Law enforcement support the law?  That’s why ninety-some sheriffs came out in opposition…  about of 102 in the state?  And what, three, publicly supported it?  They include the half-wit wokester pol in charge in Cook County, the African-American sheriff in another county and the very woke Champaign County Sheriff.


Emphasis added.  So penalize the law-abiding for the acts of criminals?  After all, the government clearly can’t protect the law-abiding, so we should disarm them of America’s favorite rifle so they can’t protect themselves?  That’s a special sort of simple mind right there.


Here we are, once again, trying desperately to resurrect “interest balancing” in evaluating Second Amendment claims.  Sniff, sniff.  That’s not a pleasant body odor, Mr. Wells.

Again, the First Amendment still applies to televised church services, or television in general.  Or high speed printing presses that can print hundreds of impressions per minute.  They weren’t around in 1791, but we still protect the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

There’s a good reason Wells, arguing for the half-wit Kwame the Magnificent, wanted to make history arguments quickly:  Because in 1791, the Second Amendment protected the guns used by the military.  Including cannons.  Yes, true.  They didn’t apply only to neutered firearms.  

And the new standard, per Bruen, for evaluating 2nd Amendment court cases is text, history and tradition.  


Emphasis added.  Two things:  First, the legislature can make those choices so long as they comport with the Constitution.  Secondly, stats cut both ways, counselor.


Only criminals and… the police?  And a million plus law-abiding gun owners like me?

Believe it or not, that Shockwave with a 12″-ish barrel patterns every bit as tight as my 590 did before I lost both in a boating accident.

PULEEEZE your honor, let us resurrect the “interest balancing” test!  Pwetty pwease!

Yes, the guns most popular for self-defense are the ones banned.  Along with the magazines that feed them gun food.

Who needs thirty-round magazines?  Guess what?  Armed blacks don’t get oppressed.  Or lynched.


Just as I mentioned in the earlier story, sure enough, Greg Bishop posted a story at the Center Square:

(The Center Square)  – After hours of oral arguments Wednesday, a federal judge now has the case challenging Illinois’ gun ban with a ruling on a preliminary injunction expected in the weeks ahead. Plaintiffs say they are confident they’ll get the law overturned…

Judge Stephen McGlynn for the Southern District of Illinois consolidated the cases and heard hours of arguments Wednesday in East St. Louis…

McGlynn said he has an open mind.

“I have not made up my mind,” he said before arguments were made. “It’s not my job to make policy decisions. My job is to make sure that the policy decisions of the legislative or executive branch are consistent with the constitution.”

That right there should cause Kwame the Magnificent great anxiety.  

Attorney Erin Murphy for the plaintiffs led most of the arguments and said the U.S. Supreme Court recently set the standard to what is considered arms in the Second Amendment and said semi-automatic firearms are arms and in common use by law-abiding gun owners.

McGlynn and Murphy debated the nuance of what limits are possible in firearm and magazine capacity, and whether such things like grenade launcher attachments or .50 caliber rifles should be banned. Attorney Thomas Maag for the plaintiffs argued the state’s definition of a grenade launcher is actually a flare launcher, which is common for methods of self preservation for someone getting lost to be found.

The state was represented by Christopher Wells who argued the banned firearms are more advanced than what the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned and they are dangerous and unusual.

The Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the Internet, television or high speed printing presses, but we don’t restrict those rights simply because technology advances.

He argued that while firearms like AR-15s may be common, there’s more chance for them to get into bad actors’ hands. With what he said was an increase in mass shootings, that’s grounds for regulation.

An armed society is a polite society.  Murder sprees happen overwhelmingly in jurisdictions that have strict gun control which keeps the good guys disarmed.  

On Monday, one of the phases of the state’s gun ban kicked in. Those found with noncompliant magazines face a petty offense with a $1,000 fine. Those found with noncompliant firearms can face up to a Class 3 felony. 

“That’s pretty darn steep,” McGlynn said…

Attorneys for the state declined to comment after the hearing.

Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde said the judge’s questions show he knows the issues.

“I think it went well,” Vandermyde said. “I think that unlike what we’ve seen in a couple of the other cases, you have a judge who understands firearms. I think his questions showed he understands the nuance of this.”

Vandermyde said gun owners are irreparably harmed by limits on their ability to keep and bear arms and gun stores are harmed by losing 60 percent of sales in some instances…

Plaintiffs were confident they’ll get a preliminary injunction against the law. Whichever way McGlynn decides, it’s expected to be appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

6 thoughts on “ANALYSIS! Federal Court hearing in gun ban case today in Southern District of Illinois Federal Court”
  1. The public safety test was buried in Bruen. There is no resurrecting that legal test, as SCOTUS was quite clear on this point. Pritzker is running around telling any moron that will listen that 8 other states have enacted similar gun bans. He, of course, fails to mention that every single one of these was pre-Bruen and engineered on the now defunct public safety balancing test. Most of these laws are now being challenged in state and Federal courts, and you can expect that all will eventually come under post-Bruen scrutiny.

    I feel that we will certainly get a statewide injunction on 2A/Bruen grounds in the next couple of weeks. The state will appeal, and will lose there, too. They have no good path to success at the Federal level, and are attempting to argue against the architect of the Bruen challenge himself.

    There is no way that the GA and Gov. Fatboy did this in a vacuum. You know good and well that they were told by their own legal staffers that this law was unconstitutional on its face, and that it would never survive a Federal challenge under Bruen. They decided to forge ahead anyway, playing for the time it would take for this to snake its way through the Federal courts. Unfortunately, there is no penalty for these politicians when they so blatantly disregard their oaths and the Constitution. They should be expelled for government for what they have done.

    1. Legislators and all politicians who put this unconstitutional “law” into a bill should be prosecuted for insurrection and be removed from current office, dis barred if attorneys, and not be allowed to hold public office again as well as lose any and all “benefits” from all public offices they have held previously and be banned from ever lobbying in the future! Can you spell “sedition” or “treason” for trying to dismantle America’s founding documents?
      Just my humble opinion.

  2. “Wells says some law enforcement support the law. Says law regulates sales, focused on gun manufactures and gun dealers. Says that’s where law will have some bite. Five minutes left.”

    This is ludicrous. It doesn’t regulate sales, it bans them outright. If they think that the protected classes are going to salvage that argument, they won’t – those classes would eventually have to be removed under Equal Protection, at the Federal level, even if this law were somehow allowed to stand. The felony and misdemeanor penalties sure as hell don’t focus on gun manufacturers and dealers – they are applied to the legal gun owner. McGlynn called out the state on creating instant felons for simply the act of owning a legal product.

  3. Thank you and great work. It looks like Kwame borrowed California’s playbook for fighting this challenge. I don’t expect it will work any better here than there.

    FOID hearing next week. I wonder if it’ll be the same arguments. Probably so.

    1. I bet it’ll be the same as always….Commie Raoul won’t be there. If he was we would all get to see he’s a political hack and not an attorney that can argue a case. He’ll send in some poor dope from his office. I can’t even begin to imagine what the state will slop together as a case for keeping the FOID. It’s going to be fun to watch !!! I especially want the state to explain why charging a fee to exercise a right is Constitutional.

  4. Powerful image at the top. A picture’s worth a thousand words. That one might be worth a thousand books.

Comments are closed.