Fair disclosure: I’m envious of Richard Pearson’s weekly email to members. His Executive Director’s Updates are usually well done. We could probably do something like that here if we had someone who could administer such a broad, email communication routine to members.
Yes, Rich Pearson and I share differences in priorities and how best to achieve those, but we’re usually pointed in the same direction. Usually.
This past Thursday, December 28th – three whole days before the end of the gun registration scheme’s window of opportunity – Rich, on behalf of ISRA, laid out the options for gun owners.
The ISRA has received hundreds of telephone calls and emails asking us to make a recommendation regarding the firearm registry requirement in the Protect Illinois Communities Act.
As the Protect Illinois Communities Act is written currently, you have four options:
1. Comply and register the firearms while our lawsuit makes its way through the court system.
2. Sell or transfer the firearms, for example thru an FFL, to someone out of state or to someone who can legally possess them in Illinois.
3. Move the firearms out of state on the assumption SCOTUS will strike down the law and you can then bring them home. Note that if SCOTUS does not strike down the law, you can never legally bring those firearms back into Illinois.
4. Keep the firearms and do not register. This option is also based on the assumption that SCOTUS will strike down the law. As a consequence of this option, firearm owners could face prosecution and imprisonment.
As an individual gun owner, you must choose the best option for you.
Hundreds of phone calls and emails? Yeah, I’ve gotten close to a hundred all by myself. But why are they (/ is he) waiting until three days before the end of the registration window to share strategies for owners of these banned guns? Especially given all the questions received. Why didn’t he publicly include this back in September or October? Anyways…
My phone and email have really blown up since my Thursday appearance with Greg Bishop on his Bishop On Air podcast/livestream/show. As in I was getting calls while on the phone with others.
Today, while on our way down to SCHEELS for some family time, my wife told me she saw something on Facebook from the NRA saying that they’ve received a gazillion calls about the gun ban and registration scheme. They’re taking the position that if you’re not a member, we’re not helping you. I can understand that. At the same time, if I have availability, I’ll try to help anyone for a minute or three.
Among those calls these last few days, I had a (non-member) guy from Chicago who called and texted repeatedly. He thought that medical providers and the ISP were in a joint conspiracy against him, seeking ultimately to kill him. Literally. He made all manner of allegations but never provided a single shred of evidence to support any his claims. Not a single one. Finally, I recommended that he might consider checking himself into a mental health facility as it sounded and read like he was genuinely having a mental health crisis. That didn’t go over well.
Just callin’ it like I saw it. Ultimately I blocked him as I just don’t have time to give away to chase geese for someone who can’t back up their claims.
One other point in the ISRA Thursday notes caught my eye:
The ISRA and its Board of Directors will continue to fight this unjust and unconstitutional law with all the resources at its disposal. We are currently preparing an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and believe it will rule in our favor.
Is Rich writing about an appeal to the US Supreme Court over the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals deciding against an en banc review of a panel decision against a preliminary injunction, then I suspect that ISRA is writing that to solicit legal fund donations.
If so, I have a crisp $100 bill for anyone what wants to wager their own against me that any appeals to SCOTUS of that panel decision affirming Judge Frank Easterbrook’s emergency stay of District Judge Steve McGlynn’s preliminary injunction will be denied. Assuming it hasn’t already.
SCOTUS and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have had multiple opportunities (and still have one pending in the Caulkins case) to take preliminary injunctive relief and have refused each and every time.
Why is that? I’ve learned that SCOTUS almost never gets involved in preliminary motions. They don’t like “interlocutory” interventions. They almost always accept only cases that have not only been decided on merits, but have gone through the normal appeals channel in the Appeals Courts. “Almost never” as in the last time I’m aware that SCOTUS has done one of these was about four years ago during COVID when they interceded to block New York State from prohibiting in-person church services as part of their China Flu craziness.
The good news, for all of the people salty over this registration Bravo Sierra (and I know there are a lot of you / us out there): Judge McGlynn has promised an expedited briefing schedule.
We’ll keep you informed right there.
Until next time… stay safe. And strapped.
Comments are closed.