REALLY GOOD NEWS: Judge McGlynn issues clarifying order in our challenge to PICA gun & magazine ban

Judge McGlynn dropped a pre-conference hearing “memorandum” ahead of our Scheduling Conference scheduled for Wednesday.  While this is nothing but a memorandum, it’s 16 pages of bad news for Kwame Raoul and his defense of the indefensible PICA law.  Maybe very bad news.

In essence, District Court Judge McGlynn has provided both a suggested road map for our side to win.  Why do I think it leans towards us?    First, if he didn’t lean towards following the Bruen decision as well as the Constitution, he wouldn’t have given us a clear roadmap to win.  Some of the language he used describing the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Bevis suggested skepticism and disagreement.  Words like the Seventh Circuit “contends” and then in the very next sentence describes the Seventh Circuit’s made-up standard as a “scheme.”  It’s not subtle.

What’s more, McGlynn set out guardrails to keep the case moving on an expedited basis.  Yes, it’s a suggestion, but at this level, when a judge gives you a suggestion, you should have a pretty darn good reason for ignoring it and even then you do so at your own peril.

He boils down the Seventh Circuit’s new made-up “test” to three questions.  Frankly, this is the most favorable part of the 16 pages for Kwame and company.

1. The weaponry in question is an item an ordinary person would keep at home for purposes of self-defense;
2. The weaponry in question is not exclusively or predominantly useful in military service; and
3. The weaponry in question is not possessed for unlawful purposes.

First, in #1, that’s not the standard under Heller and Bruen.  But it’s what the Seventh gave us in Bevis.

No doubt that’s where Kwame will hang his hat.

And then he’ll try to use #2 as his backstop.  Because if he loses here, the rest of the case looks very bad for the state’s position defending the unconstitutional as somehow constitutional.

But even at that, McGlynn urges the plaintiffs to also argue their case not only on the made-up Seventh Circuit’s “scheme” in Bevis, but also Bruen and Heller.  He also invited the defendants to offer other caselaw to support their claim but we all know there isn’t really any or anti-gun states attorneys general would have brought them up before now.

Just go read it.

Of course, as I was about to go live with this I wanted to see if Todd Vandermyde had posted a new video about this very significant memorandum.  He had not, but attorney Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner did have one.  Looks like he agrees with my interpretation – and in fact, he goes further.

Better yet, it’s tough reading.  For once, you would probably be better off watching Mark Smith’s Four Boxes Diner to save yourself some time.  I’ve also shot screen captures of some key points he raises.

We’re due for some wins.  And we welcome this baby step towards that end.