Well, that came out of left field. Late this afternoon we got word that the motions judge with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay blocking Judge Stephen McGlynn’s preliminary injunction against the new Illinois gun ban. In so many words, the “gun ban” is back on.
We didn’t expect the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to act on Kwame the Klown’s emergency motion as the proper procedure is to first go through the district court judge and only then appeal to the appeals court.
Then, as we learned more, all the pieces came together.
We drew Judge Frank Easterbrook. If that name sounds familiar, you’re right. He’s the federal judge who oversaw the Friedman case years ago before he got his promotion to the 7th Circuit. He wrote the Friedman decision. What’s more, his stay wants to re-litigate whether or not the Friedman and Highland Park gun ban cases are still relevant.
HINT: The Bruen turned both Friedman and Highland Park into dead letter law. Both cases used the two-step, interest-balancing test that Bruen said was one step too many.
But Frank Easterbrook is trying to keep his legacy in Friedman alive.
Under the rule of law, his efforts are at best misguided and at worst, downright destructive to the rule of law.
First up, Todd Vandermyde has his thoughts at Freedom’s Steel.
Also worth watching, here’s “Bazooka Tom” Devore’s thoughts on this…
Included in this video is Attorney DeVore offering his belief that firearm sales that have been approved ahead of the stay can be completed at the end of the waiting period without problem.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
As I noted above, nobody saw this coming. Frank Easterbrook certainly threw a giant monkey wrench into things.
Does this influence Justice ACB as Naperville’s response to her “ask” for a brief to support their position on or before Monday? The Naperville’s “appeal” to Barrett was a long, long, longshot. And when ACB asked Naperville for a brief, that was like a one in ten thousand (or one in a million) response. SCOTUS justices usually reject effectively all of these “emergency” requests.
I can’t help but think Easterbrook’s ruling does. Supreme Court justices are people just like the rest of us… with feelings, egos and strong beliefs. ACB will surely read about this highly unusual stay – obtained after violating the court’s rules.
Before Easterbrook’s stay, ACB could do little to nothing with McGlynn’s injunctive relief. But now, the ban is back “on” so relief is necessary to defend the Bruen decision.
Obviously, we’re going to aggressively come at this and oppose the state at every turn.
What about McGlynn?
All of this wrangling is over the preliminary injunction. The case still has to be litigated in front of McGlynn who has already ruled that the state is unlikely to succeed with its arguments. We’ll obviously seek expedited hearings to get a decision ASAP.
SO… So I bought a gun but haven’t taken possession yet. What do I do?
I’m in this boat myself. First off, if the dealer has gotten an approval on the background check, the consensus is that you can take delivery after a 72-hour waiting period.
For those who have ordered guns but haven’t gotten the approval yet? Or for those dealers leery of transferring one of these guns with this stay in place? Be patient: I fully expect Easterbrook’s decision to be reversed within the next two weeks. Be patient and watch this space.
Maybe a panel at the 7th Circuit is going to reverse this dumbass gun-hating Frank Easterbrook.
Not only that, I think there’s a non-zero chance that ACB issues an injunction from SCOTUS. Asking for a brief from Naperville has been characterized as a “warning shot” across the bow. If Barrett issues the injunction, that will have a chilling effect on these courts and jurists like Easterbrook playing stupid as they try to ignore Bruen and resurrect the two-step, interest-balancing analysis of 2A cases.
Comments are closed.