In an action sure to have lowered blood pressure at IL Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office and also the Governor’s office, the US Supreme Court today denied Dan Caulkins’ application for certiorari in his gun lawsuit challenging Pritzker’s PICA gun and magazine ban.

It by far was not the only action taken by the court today.  Here’s a complete run-down.  Note page after page of certiorari applications and rehearings denied.  Anyone who tells you they’re “going to take it to the US Supreme Court” may indeed apply for a writ of certiorari, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to get it.

11 thoughts on “US Supreme Court DENIES Caulkins Certiorari application”
    1. It means that SCOTUS declined to hear the Caulkins case, which dealt with Lard Lad purchasing a couple of IL Supreme Court robed activists. This case had very little chance of going anywhere, to be frank. SCOTUS isn’t likely to take a case over judicial corruption at the state level without more to it than a campaign contribution, no matter how sleazy it appears.

      The original Caulkins case dealt with the Equal Protection argument that was presented to ILSC (some being exempt from PICA, such as Paul Blart types, while most of the peasantry isn’t). This never had much chance of getting anywhere since it isn’t going to afford an opportunity for SCOTUS to make landmark law, which they seem to greatly prefer to do with their limited time. The cases involving the 2nd Amendment / Bruen and the 5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination through Registration) probably have more chance of that. My guess is that if they choose to do anything at all, it will be on the 2A/Bruen challenge, which still sits in the McGlynn court (new hearing on that 12 Jan).

    2. Ah, but……it literally IS that simple. The standard is “appearance of impropriety.” If $1,000,000 in campaign contributions is NOT the appearance of impropriety – AS A MATTER OF LAW – then what is? There is required no factual development for such a challenge, other than the motion Caulkins made.

  1. Sorry to hear the bad news Dan. Hats off to you for filing the suit. That’s more than most people did

  2. Make no mistake about it. Caulkins rushed his case to the Illinois supreme court to keep DeVore from getting discovery on all of Caulkin’s buddies. This latest stuff with Caulkins trying to go to the US supreme court is all optics. People really need to pay attention.

  3. Correct Liberals. We will see which ban case makes it to USSC first: Maryland, California, New York (new in the mix as of last week), or eventually IL. Judge McGlynn is having a scheduling conference the 12th of Jan for arguments on the merits. He has given a deadline for brief submission as 19 Feb. The AG’s office asked for an extension promptly denied. Judge McGlynn was serious when he mentioned in his prelim injunction denial reference registration about getting this case heard on the merits. Appears to be the ‘no f*&cking around judge.

  4. WOW! I am SHOCKED at this. I cannot believe the supremes will allow state supreme court judges to be BOUGHT and paid for, especially because, in another case they CONDEMNED IT.

    HOWEVER, fear not, oh ye of faint hope! They are NOT incognizant of developments in gun law. THey are WATCHING what happens in Illinois and they will NOT let Bruen go ignored.

    I thought that – independent of any gun issues – they would slap the Illinois court for this glaring misapplication of justice for we the people, but alas, it is not to be.

    THey’ll get the gun cases right, when they’re RIPE.

  5. The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority whatsoever to prevent anyone from keeping and bearing arms. Neither do state or local Illinois governments. The Federal Government Cannot Lawfully Make ANY Restrictions on Our Guns & Ammo. We the People nowhere delegated to any branch of the Illinois or federal government power to restrict, infringe, etc., guns, ammo, etc. We have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc. The 2nd Amendment recognizes this God-given right keep and bear arms for self-defense, government didn’t grant us that unalienable (unchangeable) right. The courts need to read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, so they know they don’t get to decide the scope and extent of our God-given “rights” under the 2nd Amendment. Government has NO lawful authority to play God by watering down our constitutionally protected God given rights. Point to The Declaration of Independence (2nd para) and assert that your right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, comes from GOD and is Unalienable (Unchangeable by a usurping government)

    1. You know, when Texas joined the Union, Texas reserved to itself the right to secede from the Union. it has been subtly threatened a couple of times in recent years. But I would really like to see Texas implement that. They’re fighting that invasion over their borders that the feds aren’t helping at all with and are, instead, going to federal court to sue the state of Texas to prevent their efforts. if I were Texas’ governor I would say Mr. Biden, If you don’t seal this border Immediately we are going to secede from the union.

      Unfortunately illinois doesn’t have such a clause in its constitution.

Comments are closed.