Great analysis from Awa at on our June 29th oral arguments hearing in front of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here’s the link.

Having spent today thinking about what I heard in the 7th Circuit Court oral arguments, I think I’ve identified why it was so difficult.

  • The two anti-gun judges were actually rude. Easterbrook made disparaging sighs and other sounds while the good guys were presenting.
  • The Judges were disrespectful to the Bruen court. They actually laughed at some of the phrasing from Justice Thomas’ opinion
  • Judge Wood constantly played dumb, claiming that figuring out what the words of the Second Amendment actually meant was going to be their task, even though the Heller court told them what the words mean.
  • Judge Easterbrook was demanding that the good guys argue against the NFA instead of the actual laws. Sort of: If we decide that an AW/LCM ban is unconstitutional, what’s to keep you from arguing that the NFA is unconstitutional?
  • The Circuit Court represents more than just the state of Illinois. Yet Easterbrook and Wood kept repeating that machine guns and grenades are banned. Machine guns are banned in Illinois, but not in every state under the 7th Circuit.
  • Easterbrook wanted to find some “special” meaning in “in common use today”. He refused to use plain text.

I expected the state to misrepresent the situation. I expected them to make their best arguments, even if they had to make huge reaches. They did not disappoint in that regard. It was just how down right disrespectful Easterbrook and Wood were to the Bruen Court, Murphy and Maag. It was not a good look.


2 thoughts on “GREAT ANALYSIS: on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing…”
  1. Why was a motion not filed to remove Easterbrook from the case? He’s clearly biased and incapable of being impartial. At least judge Wood was respectful to the plaintiffs lawyer. Easterbrook should have been removed from this before the arguments even began because he has a clear conflict of interest. Does anyone honestly think he was capable of being impartial when the debate is whether his idiotic Friedman decision is still good law?

  2. Sometimes you’re just talking to kill time til you can get to the next higher court. Sometimes you’re talking to the recording device. You still have to make your arguments. Sometimes it’s just practice. This is the Frog/Scorpion conundrum. We know what Wood and Disasterbrook are. We’re stuck with them. Fortunately the supreme court won’t stand for their nonsense. I mentioned a case the other day in a post here, that led to Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid in the supreme court. The dissent in the 9th Circus said “hey, guys! Can you please not do something so stupid you’ll make us look like idiots? The supremes are going to spank us again!” and lo and behold, the supremes did just that. And the 9th Circus looks even DUMBER than it did before, if that’s even possible.
    The 7th Circus is on its way to that star chamber/kangaroo court reputation. But have confidence in the supremes. This plan of theirs took fifteen years to implement. It’ll take time to enforce it.

Comments are closed.