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.


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.


8 thoughts on “Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge stays injunction… Gun Ban is back “ON””
  1. The ban is massively unconstitutional and even a non lawyer can see that. The fact that this ass clown judge wrote out a stay with zero explanation and with no input from our side makes me wonder if he got some kind of retirement gift from someone known for buying judges. There’s absolutely no reason the case McGlynn was handling should have been interfered with and the 7th should have let it played out to the end and then and only then start looking at appeals. Once again activist judges make people lose faith in the court system. Hopefully ACB is good and pissed that about this and can do something.

    1. You aren’t the only one, Bill. It would be hard not to wonder about this given Jabba the Guv’s proclivities to write checks to judges directly. He sees no harm in it, even as a defendant in cases directly before those same judges. In his world, buying judges is an action no different than buying a case of Krispy Kremes for his daily repast.

      Illinois has a long reputation for being the most corrupt state in the nation, and the actions of the Corpulent Chicago Cksucker give weight (no pun intended) to that perception.

  2. I am sick of puke activists in robes masquerading as judges. Our court system needs a giant courtesy flush of those that refuse to uphold their oath. Activist judges are big proponents of the Constitution being a ‘living document’ subject to the whims of their activism – until it changes in a way that they don’t agree with, such as Bruen.

    While I am not a lawyer, the case Friedman v. Highland Park was DIRECTLY rendered invalid by Bruen in my opinion. This case was essentially the case the PICA is crafted after – a ban on assault rifles and magazines in Highland Park. The Supreme Court refused at that time to take the case (denied a writ of certiorari) and allowed the ruling of the 7th Appeals court to stand that the Highland Park ban was constitutional. As most recall, SCOTUS was a very different makeup in 2015 – essentially a 4-4 court with Kennedy blowing in the wind on every case. Today, post-Bruen, SCOTUS is pretty much 6-3 on gun rights issues with ACB seated above the 7th. Easterbrook wrote the opinion on Friedman. It is his case, and his legacy. As an interesting side note, the term ‘second class right’ as used to describe 2A stems from this very case, in a strong dissent by Clarence Thomas. SCOTUS is well aware of the ‘efforts’ of Justus Easterbrook to undermine 2A. It was quoted within Bruen itself, and continues to appear in 2A arguments.


    It appears that Kwame the Klown jumped the gun here, and found a sym-pathetic judge more intent on preserving his legacy than upholding the Constitution. Kwame wasn’t satisfied to follow the courts’ directions to submit pleadings to McGlynn by 5/8 explaining why the stay should be reversed. Instead, he decided to go directly to the 7th. Easterbrook improperly decided to hijack the case himself, and issue a reversal on the stay. The proper course of action was to return Kwame to the district court without further comment. Kwame used the public safety test as his only argument to Easterbrook. Under Bruen, this should have been rejected immediately. A direct link between ‘public safety’ and whether or not PICA is in operation cannot and has not been established. That is nothing but a supposition not supported by facts, as was pointed out in the McGlynn ruling itself.

    Kwame seems to forget that the actual case still has to be litigated in McGlynn’s court. These actions will undoubtedly anger McGlynn since Kwame decided to judge shop around him. Additionally, Easterbrook’s meddling will undoubtedly draw the attention of ACB along with the rest of the activism coming from the Northern District. She presides over ALL of Illinois as part of her role on SCOTUS. The State has likely greatly increased the chances of SCOTUS wading into this mess with his haphazard clown show. Kwame has won a couple of skirmishes by playing the short game, but is risking incurring the wrath of SCOTUS by doing so.

  3. Unexpected is a good way to characterize this situation. I thought no action would be taken by the 7th Appeals until the court returned from recess in mid-May. Judge Easterbrook is a Reagan appointee. Not only did he make a badly reasoned decision in Friedman he was overturned by the USSC in McDonald. Judge Easterbrook is what is currently referred to as a law and order judge (in the political spectrum a RINO, no friend of the Bill of Rights). This stay was brought about by the AG’s office judge shopping. The judge was picked because of his known propensities and Rule 8 (not going to get into the weeds) was bastardized a bit so the State of Illinois could claim a win. This is a one-judge-order, at least three different avenues to reverse this decision exist. What I thought was the most unlikely avenue; the emergency appeal to the USSC has to be examined in the morning light. Judge Barrett required City of Naperville to respond because she knows the ordinance is bad law. This was indeed a warning shot across the bow of the 7th Appeals. Now a fully briefed and argued motion for injunction, with injunction granted, can be appealed in the same procedure. Justice Barrett will be the USSC gateway to consideration of this emergency motion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia (God grant him peace) was a dissenter to Friedman and wrote the ban in that case was clearly unconstitutional. We’ll see in the next couple of weeks how tired the conservativeJustices, and the likes of John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, are of being ignored.

  4. Can someone explain how or why this was given such quick attention if the 7th CoA was supposed to be in recess until May 17th?

    1. A very good question, Moses. Many of us would like to know what got this judge to crawl out of his sewer so quickly and to violate judicial protocol.

  5. The answer is the Ag’s office bastardized what is known as Rule 8 (USSC) procedural guide and sought out Judge Easterbrook specifically to impart a stay, because the AG knew he would do so. The AG’s office used a work-around, no point in boring with the details. It happened. It is not proper, I would think the USSC and perhaps a few of the judges in the 7th Appeals will not look favorably on this action. This is a pain-in-the-ass, in the end I believe it will be the State of Illinois and perhaps certain judges in the 7th Circuit and Appeals with a Supreme boot up their ass.

  6. My guess is the judge got bought by jb, just like the isc. The only difference is the price tag.

Comments are closed.