The Southern District of Illinois had an important status hearing today in Judge McGlynn’s Court. Once again, Greg Bishop of Bishop On Air has the authoritative summary in an X thread well worth reading for those who wish to geek out. If you want to skip reading and listen to Bishop’s summary, you can get in on the YouTube video we’ll post below.
For the “too long, didn’t read/watch” crowd: The state’s squirming. They want to delay the case until discovery has been completed sometime in NOVEMBER. Yeah, McGlynn said, “I’m not interested in delaying this case for any length of time so that the government can figure out what they’ve passed in the legislation.”
The State is also worried about “surprises” in the discovery phase. Hey, not our fault you don’t understand guns or the breadth of the legislative ban.
McGlynn told all of us earlier he plans on having a decision by July 4th. Clearly the State of Illinois either didn’t get the memo or they thought he was jist kiddin’. Either way, things are moving.
The Center Square has a published story:
(The Center Square) – A federal judge told the state he is not interested in delaying a challenge to Illinois’ gun ban so government lawyers can figure out what the state legislature passed.
Illinois enacted a ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms, certain capacities of magazines and attachments in January 2023. Shortly after, a series of lawsuits were filed. Several were consolidated in the Southern District of Illinois. In April, federal Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction as the case played out. That was later stayed by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which eventually ruled the state had a likelihood of winning on the merits.
While gun ban challenges in the Northern District of Illinois federal court are on hold while plaintiffs there aim for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, last month McGlynn denied similar motions in the Southern District saying constitutional rights are allegedly violated and he wants to expeditiously address the merits of the case.
“This is a very important matter,” McGlynn said Friday. “The claimants believe that their constitutional rights have been imperiled and so it’s the court’s belief that I should try to work through this with as much dispatch as possible, understanding that we want to get it right and whatever discovery needs to be exchanged can be exchanged, but also understanding that in these cases there isn’t a lot of prolonged and protected discovery.”
Just before Friday’s hearing, the state proposed wrapping up discovery on Nov. 30. That was after the plaintiffs suggested wrapping up discovery in July.
“I’m not interested in delaying this case for any length of time so that the government can figure out what they’ve passed in the legislation,” McGlynn said to the notion of discovery finishing up in late November.
Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde has been consulting for one of the plaintiffs groups. He said his takeaway is the judge knows the arguments and is ready to get started…
Vandermyde said McGlynn had his finger on the pulse that the state passed a bad bill.
“And the government lawyers are playing catchup to try and understand the technicalities of how broad it is and I think he kind of pinned them on that,” Vandermyde said.
The state argued it needs to know what specifically plaintiffs are challenging and what standing it has. Vandermyde said that’s a stretch.
“It sounds like they want us to provide 200 plaintiffs and go through ‘I want to buy one of these and now I can’t,’ through that entire list of firearms,” Vandermyde said.
I’ve written more than a few times that I encourage those folks interested in gun rights to “Subscribe” to Greg Bishop’s “Bishop On Air” YouTube channel. You’ll be glad you did.
Comments are closed.