Judge Stephen McGlynn granted a request from the state for 30 days for them to work on their “expert witnesses” to the history of the 2nd Amendment and perhaps other experts to tell them what the law they’re defending really does.

Kwame Raoul asked for effectively an indefinite delay, wanting to complete discovery before moving forward with other preliminary work.  The judge denied that.

Greg Bishop has the details.


4 thoughts on “Kwame Gets 30 Day Delay in Southern District of Illinois Federal Court…”
  1. Funny how unconstitutional legislation, consisting of hundreds or thousands of pages, can appear overnight and be signed into law the next day, but it takes years to defend it’s constitutionality in court. Shouldn’t the all the research($$$) be at the beginning instead of the end?

  2. Yes, Kevin. It should already have been done, before the law was passed.

    McGlynn gets it. The state of Illinois doesn’t. This law was passed, post-Bruen. That requires any legislature passing anti-gun laws to CONDUCT an historical analysis to determine whether there was any law at the founding that would be analogous to the law they seek to pass now and, thus, the new law could pass Constitutional muster. That is supposed to be DONE BEFORE THE LAW IS PASSED.

    SO their expert witnesses would already have been nailed down in their statements in support of passing such law. It would be DONE already. NOW, since we all know the state of Illinois (G.A.) did not do this, they’re scurrying to find some suckers who will testify that some law somewhere in time would justify the complete ban of all modern firearms. In Liam Neeson’s Albanian adversary’s voice, “good luck.”

    McGlynn gives ’em another 30 days to make it seem reasonable. He knows. There is nothing in historical analogue that can justify such an all-encompassing ban on not just the most popular rifle in HISTORY, but most semi-auto handguns as well.

  3. History experts? WTF? This is NOT what was clarified in Bruen. I think McGlynn has been on point during this litigation. I have only one explanation: McGlynn told the plaintiffs AND the state to prepare arguments considering the Bruen holdings and the 7th Appeals make believe. The only explanation I can see for this is the delay was granted to avoid what we know will be a shit show at 7th Appeals when the statute is declared unconstitutional after hearing the merits. A limited 30 day delay is better than ‘infinite’. This is all very frustrating. This statute has been in effect for over a year. Should the state not be prepared?

    1. He’s simply making sure he dosn’t create an appealable issue.
      It’s just like the way the Supreme Court and particularly Justice Scalia laid the foundation for bruen.

      It takes forethought.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *