Robert Bevis over at Law Weapons has courage.  God bless men like him.  He drew a bad judge for his case challenging the Naperville ordinance against selling America’s favorite rifle and the magazines that feed it.  The judge, in a request for injunctive relief, issued a word-salad decision denying the injunctive relief.

Bevis then went to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who declined to hear the appeal on the injunction.

So now, after consulting with his attorneys and a select few others, he’s filed for an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review.

Yes, it’s a long shot.  But it’s worth it.  If he gets the order, we’ve suddenly changed the game dramatically.

5 thoughts on “Law Weapons appeals to the US Supreme Court!”
  1. Considering the rationalization in support of anti legislation. The judge once again sought to explain away recent supreme court’s rulings. Hoping the supremes decide to hear the case.

  2. These radical judges can’t keep ignoring SCOTUS. Eventually the Supremes will get fed up and smack them down. Be patient and keep fighting.

  3. I suspect this case will be rendered moot by the actions in the Southern District. This is a very narrow case that probably should have been consolidated with the actions before Judge McGlynn, but wasn’t. I doubt that given the scope of this case, SCOTUS will take it up although it is possible that Amy Coney Barrett could issue a simple injunction against the law (she is the presiding judge over the 7th Circuit). They could also return it to the 7th for further review, or take no action at all. The judge who heard the case was so egregiously bad, with a history of bad rulings in gun cases, that there may be no choice but for SCOTUS to consider this question. Let us hope that Bevis prevails.

    Not a big fan of NAGR personally. I have always considered them to be more of a money grabbing organization and less of a defender of 2A rights. Time will tell.

  4. The case law presented here is actually quite compelling, but I don’t see SCOTUS wading directly into this. Their opinion is going to be that this is something the appellate courts need to address, I believe. The Seventh seems pretty gutless these days, however. It would seem the plan is that if you disagree with Bruen, you simply ignore the ruling and make up one of your own, or refuse to hear the case entirely.
    Like everything else about our ‘government’, the judiciary seems to hate the Constitution, and would prefer Das Capital.

Comments are closed.