Justice Barrett Gives Illinois Officials Until Monday to Respond to Challenge of “Assault Weapons” Ban

We recently discussed a federal judge enjoining the new Illinois law banning “assault weapons.” Now a gun shop in Naperville, Illinois has made it to the Supreme Court in seeking injunctive relief and Justice Amy Coney Barrett has given the proponents of the law until Monday to respond to the request.

On Tuesday afternoon, Barrett issued the order to the city of Naperville in Illinois after Robert Bevis, owner of Law Weapons & Supply, challenged two bans. First, he is challenging the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) that was the subject of the earlier injunction. Second, he is challenging a separate Naperville city ban that he says is destroying his business.

Here is the question in Bevis v. Naperville and the State of Illinois, No. 22A948:

Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines tens of millions of which are possessed by law-abiding American for lawful purposes when there is no analogous historical ban as required in D.C. v. Heller (2008)…and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

When Barrett was up for confirmation, I noted that the Second Amendment could prove one of her most interesting legacy areas of jurisprudence. Her dissent in Kanter v. Barr as an appellate judge was a powerful defense of Second Amendment rights. Rickey Kanter was convicted of one count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts.  Focusing on the “history and tradition” of such restrictions, Barrett also took on the voting rights and jury service point with a key distinction:

“The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[ ] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.” See Saul Cornell, A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment , 22 LAW & HIST. REV. 161, 165 (2004). For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice…

Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 582–86, 128 S.Ct. 2783.”

In this case, we are dealing with a direct ban on certain weapons that are loosely characterized as “assault weapons.”

I have previously raised doubts over some of these laws, which are based on questionable factual claims and distinctions between weapons. Indeed, President Biden has made dubious constitutional and historical claims about the Second Amendment and AR-15s.

Illinois and New York have previously supplied gun rights advocates with huge victories by drafting facially unconstitutional laws. Moderate efforts at gun control are often ramped up in the legislative process to become more and more sweeping.

This is a standard response to such an emergency filing. Yet, these cases are now bubbling up to the Court from various states and it seems increasingly likely that the Court may be inching toward a new review of Second Amendment claims. However, the Court often prefers to wait for a conflict in the circuits to allow lower courts to be heard on such laws.

127 thoughts on “Justice Barrett Gives Illinois Officials Until Monday to Respond to Challenge of “Assault Weapons” Ban”

    1. Excluding suicides there were an estimated 20,138 gun deaths in 2022. Going back to at least 1980 there have been more suicides by gun than murders by gun each year.

        1. From what little you said, the implication seems to be that people who support a robust guarantee of constitutional right to keep and bear arms, are only doing so because they want to murder their neighbor’s children. It is telling others that they act from an evil motive. Doesn’t that fall within the modern, colloquial usage of the term “gaslighting”?

            1. So your disagreement is solely with the term gaslighting? You don’t deny that you were suggesting to people who support 2A rights that their reason for such support is a desire to murder their neighbor’s children?

              1. Kansas Elder, somebody here on this blog asked if they could buy a machine gun. So being idle, I did a quick internet search and found many on many vendors of ‘transferable’ machine guns. I posted one and then my dismay at the recent spate of murders took hold…

                    1. Interesting.
                      So, known criminals, involved in criminal conduct, use machine guns to commit mass murder of other criminals.
                      Right. Got ya.
                      Yet, we have what instances of that happening in the past . . . what? 20 or 30 years?
                      BTW, the Las Vegas shooting does not count as the firearm itself was not a machinegun.

                    2. Indivicual ownership of weapons such as the Thompson submachine gun wasn’t disallowed until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed, the St Valentine’s day massacre occured in 1929, I think….

    1. @David,
      So what exactly is your point?

      You point to a gun broker site where you still have to be able to buy the NFA weapon, meaning you have to live within one of the 42 states, and then pay for the gun, have it sitting in ‘jail’ until you clear the extra checks and pay your tax stamp. Then it goes to your local FFL dealer.

      Now for the fun statistics. None of these guns are used in crimes. These are very expensive… more that you could afford.

      Clearly you don’t know anything about guns, or the law.

      So why do you feel the need to be an ignorant troll?


        1. @David…
          No idea what you mean when you say “I could afford to decorate a wall.”.


          The point is that you haven’t a clue about firearms. That’s the first problem.
          I suggest you take an intro to firearms course. Pistol or long gun. (Pistol may be easier)

          This will teach you how different firearms operate.

          Once you start to understand that… you will see the fallacy of these AWB laws.

          Second your view on guns will change. Now you may not want to continue to not own one… but you’re going to view the firearm as a tool, not a toy or in your case… some pseudo sexual phallic symbol.

          Your first post, as short as it was… leads one to believe you have a sad sexual fantasy over guns.
          (You may want to talk to a doctor about that too.)

          Then on the legal side.
          You could read the federalist papers, but start w Heller, McDonald and then Bruen SCOTUS decisions.
          You should also read the text andupdates to the NFA Act. (yes I know the Act is redundant.)


          1. Ian,
            I have seen this argument in the past. Even had it with a co-worker once.
            If you own a gun of any kind, their immediate stance is,
            “Why do you want to kill?!?!!??!?!?!?!?”
            I do not want to kill anyone.
            Unless in service to the US DoD/military or in self-defense, I am not going to take aim at anyone.
            I have more than a few firearms.
            Two deer rifles, one centerfire, one black powder. Honestly, the BP is more fun to shoot.
            A turkey shotgun. I could use it for deer too.
            A .22LR for varmints.
            A few target rifles. I like to shoot tiny groups at distance.
            I have one shotgun that is for self-defense.
            And a scout style bolt rifle that covers several uses.
            I do not own a AR15. Never will.
            But for some, they cannot get past their fear of an inanimate object. Just the other day, the neighbor called to tell me he saw a fox cross his side of the road to mine. The chickens were out. Naturally, I got the .22LR out and investigated. I did see it cross back to my neighbors side. But as it is illegal to shoot across a road, and onto someone’s else property (it is actually considered trespassing according to state law). I have had it close at hand since then. It is just sitting there, unloaded but full magazine within hands reach. It has not committed a mass murder.
            Same goes for the scout bolt rifle.
            Yet, according to some, if you own a given firearm, you want to,
            “Mow down your neighbor’s children even faster!”
            Where is the logic or common sense in that?

    2. What is the population percentage of men who “mow down [their] neighbor’s children…?”

      You just lost all credibility.

    3. One needs a NFA Class III permit to purchase an automatic weapon, if your juridiction allows residents to own such firearms. It is not easy to obtain one…..

  1. Some posting on this blog are being very naive. They say that the leftist on this blog are not trying to change anyones mind. This thought can be forgiven until one sees what there objectives really are. This book explains what they are all about. https://books.google.com/books/about/Queering_Elementary_Education.html?id=3jrULETBwt8C. They are on this blog with a purpose. I have no regrets for pushing back against what they want our country to become.

  2. I respond to the leftist trolls on this blog everyday. If you read my posts you will come to the conclusion that I am not elevating their existence in any way. You would see that I am doing exactly the opposite. If pointing out the ridiculousness of their posts is somehow elevating their stature then I stand guilty as charged. Perhaps I am naive but my hope is that some of the people who frequent this blog but never comment will see the true positions of the leftist on this blog. These commentators are pushing the leftist talking points and I believe it is necessary to point out their misrepresentations. Do we just post on this blog to be posting or do we post with the hope of convincing some to our way of thinking. To say that I am elevating their existence by my posts filled with acidic response to their thinking can be called nothing else but ridiculous.

    1. @Thinkitthrough

      That’s my logic too – the days of ‘don’t feed the trolls’ are over. Without any responses to their gaslighting, no one simply glancing would know there was pushback, and there is such a vast amount of knowledge and experience amongst the readership here, that would really be a mistake. Not unlike community notes on Twitter, this is an unfortunate necessity in our modern web era, IMO. The sheer number of times trolls accuse the Professor of somehow being right-wing or a Trump shill alone justify it. Just remember it’s FUD they are spreading: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. And it is usually by design.

      1. Thanks James. The leftist have a goal to convince people. No response to their efforts is a dereliction of duty.

      2. You just feed the trolls where you can educate them and others.
        Some are just not worth the time.

        I find Denise to be too funny sometimes.

    2. I respond to the leftist trolls on this blog everyday. If you read my posts you will come to the conclusion that I am not elevating their existence in any way. You would see that I am doing exactly the oppositejust that very thing

      Self-awareness much?

      Our host makes it abundantly clear on his blog civility rules page, the following: “Like all sites, we attract trolls and juvenile posters who want to tear down the work of others. It is a sad reality of the Internet and the worst element of our species. Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them. They are trolls and live under cyber bridges for a reason.”

      Now, repeat the penitential rite.
      NB: you get twice as many sins covered if you pray it in Latin

      Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis, et vobis, fratres (et tibi pater), quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: mea culpa, [strike breast] mea culpa, [strike breast] mea maxima culpa [strike breast]. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes Sanctos, [et vos, fratres (et te, pater)] orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. Amen.

      Translation: I resolve to never engage the trolls again, so help me God

      1. Estovir,
        I find it absurd to believe the Leftists on this blog are here primarily to convince people of some just cause. If that were their goal, we’d see at least one convert. Conversely, if they were rational people seeing no change in hearts and minds, they’d either try to find a better argument, or leave. And they do neither. So day in and day out, they take our host’s legally rational, reasonable and ethical posts, flip them on their head and begin trolling the blog from that position. Their obvious objective is essentially to get clicks.

        We have a lot of really bright people that will take the bait and click. They will craft eloquent arguments in response and then wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, the comment section resembles a food fight, everyone goes home knowing that it will resume the following day. My point is those eloquent comments can be made without mentioning the trolls by name and most certainly without clicking on their bait.

        BTW, I confess, I’ve taken the bait before.

        1. I went to medical school in the 1990s at the University of Florida. Fate happened during my studies, had a basilar skull fracture brought on my AFib, resulted in a coma for over 1 week. I had a promising career training with cardiothoracic surgeons, and all of it was gone. I was told by my many physician specialists that I would never walk again, work, had to relearn how to walk, and so forth. Today I am physically disabled but it has not kept me back. During my 3 years convalescence, Gainesville introduced a “free internet” called Alachua Freenet which was accessible via dialup modems. I had 2 phone lines at home, one for land lines, another for FAX. I discovered I could access Medline from home, then discussion forums, and flame wars. Soon my FAX line became my dedicated modem line. I started a listserve discussion forum for Roman Catholics using majordomo software. Like everyone at the time, I was fascinated with usernet groups, and the hellacious flame wars that we all had, just for fun. I got back on my feet, went into Pharma as a Medical Liaison, and didn’t think twice about the internet. I enjoy face/face much much more than online. After my gig with Pharma I returned to medical school but in Puerto Rico where the internet was almost non-existent. When I started posting on this forum in 2019, by then living in Virginia, I still had my old medical school blog running on WordPress, referred to it a few times on here, then decided to take it down. It was tied to my previous Gravatar which had a picture of St. Thomas Aquinas. When Facebook was launched, I didn’t think much of it. I never cared for America OnLine, CompuServe, only got a cell phone because my employer mandated I have one. Soon people were pulling away from each and opting instead to spend more time on Facebook than face/face, then smart phones. As a Latino I am very passionate about people, culture, food, and can walk into a room and start a conversation with anyone. So Facebook and smartphones appeared to me as dumb, fake, inefficient and unnatural to the human condition. We are made to interact with each other much like our 30 trillion cells within our body. As society sunk more and more into Facebook, I noticed that people were stating most of their “friends” were online, but when they had a medical emergency, a tragedy in their life, etc, they realized they had no friends in reality. I remember visiting a friend at the hospital who had had a massive MI. A recent widow, Jewish, wealthy and obnoxious, he lit up when I walked into his room. He was angry that none of his “friends” from Facebook visited him. I never forgot that encounter and it was prescient.

          Fast forward to today, I see a lot of broken people in my career. People see Physicians for only one reason: they want something. And so, I have developed a disposition that is always observing, listening, engaging, being approachable. I seem to have a sign on my forehead that says, “tell me your problems”. People do. All of them suffer the same pathology: no friends in vivo. Their lives are on Instagram, FB, and so forth, but when they need something, they have no one. Often they resort to addictions, bad choices, that get them into medical problems. It seems most have no successful relationships with spouses, lovers or children. As a Catholic, much like you a Christian, I see my role in life as looking for the disguised Christ. Mother Theresa of Calcutta encouraged her Nuns and her audience members to seek the disguised Christ in their midst. Problem is, very few people today have people skills nor interpersonal skills. Most people are anxious, depressed, lonely, and very self-absorbed. It’s a running joke that people no longer use the telephone to communicate. Loneliness results. I find this to be more often than not true in the retired population, and I see it here as well. When I see people comment about the ills of today, I immediately think aloud, “what are you doing about it locally?” It’s the same people day in/day out, whether Christians, Catholics, conservatives, complaining about our imminent destruction. Sometimes I am that person as well. Thus when I see people on this forum feeding the trolls, who really believe they are making progress in addressing our society woes by stamping out evil, what they are really doing, in my estimation, is feeing their own addiction, loneliness, contributing to the further deterioration of our society by ignoring people right across the street from where they live, in their neighborhood, etc.

          I use this forum, as I have stated many times, to quote Paul Schulte of Arizona, as playing in a sandbox. I’m just here to have fun, sometimes do good, sometimes humor, and sometimes vent. But I also balance my life with seeing patients, doing research, teaching, mentoring, and engaging others around me because they are the disguised Christ. The trolls aren’t real. They are not genuine discussants. They are chaff. They are here to provoke chaos by attracting attention to themselves, as Professor Turley notes. And yet, the retired folk can do a world of good by engaging people outside their doors instead of doing what young kids do today: hide behind smart phones and avatars as “gamers”. For every time I see the usual suspects engaging trolls, waging a virtual jihad, they could be mentoring children without fathers, tudor fatherless kids, teach boys to be confident, girls to learn self-care, visit prisoners, feed the hungry, caring for the sick, etc. Commenting on here is fun, playful, and for me, a release from my many pressures from life and my career, and yes, anxiety about Marxism in our country. But in the final analysis, as a Christian, I will be measured by how often I engaged the disguised Christ in person, as opposed to a disguised troll. If 33% of Americans set out to interact with others face to face to help, serve, minister to the broken and the needy, we would not need Republicans, Democrats, or the MSM to serve as our shepherds. We would see them for the self-serving trolls that they are.

          Just my 2 cents


          1. Estovir, thank you for the enlightening story. I am sure you know about Charles Krauthammer, but I mention his name just in case. He too was training to be a physician when he broke his neck. Despite being quadriplegic he finished medical school and later became a writer and an editorialist for the Washington Post, mostly political. He was a genius and worthwhile reading since he laid out his opinions carefully. I consider him a major force.

          2. When I was young people use to have front porches. They would sit on their front porch and acknowledge people walking by. A very simple bit of socializing. Now we have decks on the back of our houses. Doesn’t seem like mush but it is telling on how people have changed.

            1. Independent Bob,
              I was walking out to the barn the other day. Someone honked as they went by and waved. I waved back. I have no idea who it was and did not recognize the vehicle.
              One bitterly cold winter, wife’s car got stuck in the snow. I was straining to push her out. Some guy I do not know saw what was going on, turned around and came back to lend a hand.
              Places like this still exist.

              1. Out in the boonies in south west VA my car overheated. A woman stopped offered to drive home – a few miles away to get water that would get me a bit farther. While she was getting water – 3 other people stopped and offered to help. When she got bakc we put a gallon of water in, and she went again out of her way to lead me to a garage that was opened on sunday.
                The problem was a $10 part, but there was no opened parts store that had it, So the shop fabricated a replacement from something at a hardware store that got us on the way. When I tried to pay the shop owner, he only wanted the price of the antifreeze he put into the car. The temporary repair lasted several more days until I got home to my mechanic who fixed the problem for about $20.

                Atleast half a dozen people went out of their way to offer help that day.
                And every single one of them had a Southern Drawl.

          3. Estovir,
            Thank you for sharing the details of your physical challenges. It is truly inspiring to read how you persevered through it all. You speak of looking for the disguised Christ and yet I can see that He is working through you. Amen brother.

            I joined this blog over 10 years ago with the intent of learning from people that actually worked in the legal profession. I had naively believed that if I was armed with a better understanding of the law, I would be equipped to debate those attacking our institutions and the rights of the people. Back then, JT used to do his updates on how his blog was growing and in that post he would acknowledge the top 5 commenters. My ego drove me to engage more and I started to find myself getting into the top 5. In that stupid quest I was slow to realize that no matter what the law, facts and evidence could easily prove, those on the attack didn’t relent. Then JT stopped posting the top 5 and my attention turned to the nature of those on the attack.

            It’s been a slow progression but it is now quite clear these attackers are not here to persuade, but rather to disrupt. I am certain that if there were no internet, face to face interaction with them would be short lived. They’d be heard initially, quickly countered and then ignored. If they persisted to disrupt, they would be run out of the room. In this forum however, they are not shunned, but treated as though they have ideas worthy of debate. They are not, at least not directly. Those that want to counter these attackers can and should still do so. Just do so as a stand-alone comment and not in reply. Don’t mention them by name. Don’t highlight them, highlight the ideas you are arguing against. That still gets the point written into the record and move on.

            1. Thanks Olly, and the others. The country is in a death spiral, and there is only one way to fix it: accompany each other. That was my point. No matter one’s age, educational level, ethnicity, race, disability or income, all of us have a responsibility to our neighbors. Medicine is built on that principle. Civilizations as well. I of course mean neighbors across from our home, and radiate outwardly from our home. I cant do a darned thing about Washington DC. I can however minister to my neighbor, and let him do likewise as John Say and UpState Farmer noted. Independent Bob is spot on. We can change that locally.

              We are all guests at Professor Turley’s “home”. He only has one rule “do not feed the trolls”. If any of us hosted a guest, we would expect our guest to honor our rules. Show our host we respect him by honoring his request as we play in his sandbox.


              1. Estovir, that is sage advice. I received this article today and I believe it captures the essence of what you are saying.

                Best are the practical, moral suggestions along the way and in a concluding postscript about the practice of friendship with each other and God. The thankfulness at the heart of Christian life grounds this advice. Thankfulness to God who offers friendship is the sine qua non of eucharistic living. Thankfulness for and attention to our old friends make us open to new friends whom God will place in our lives. In that way, our friendships here prepare us for heaven. There we will share with God and each other an intimacy more expansive and even deeper than that of earthly marriage.

                1. this is quite good, Olly. Thanks for sharing. It reminds me of the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) Let us pray for one another and our world.

      2. Estovir, the Democratic Party is composed of a bunch of trolls and Professor Turley points out their inconsistencies every day. Are you saying that he should stop doing so because you are saddened by the confrontation. I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that you are non confrontational but it is also not wrong for some to take on a more confrontational role. Otherwise no one would answer the trolls on this blog and the trolls on MSNBC. You have a valuable part to play and so do I. By the way, when I pray for the nation I am praying that the trolls will remain free so that they can say what they will but I will continue to respond when they have no such consideration for my freedom of speech. To me staying quiet is just not an option even if you prefer that I do so.

    3. TT – You’re not wrong to engage Leftists. For me though, I don’t bother, especially to anyone who refuses to use at least a pseudonym; it removes any chance of them being unwittingly paid ‘per-response’ on my part. One quickly determines who’s just in the discussion for the sake of arguing vs trying to consider the other participant just might have a valid point. The former isn’t worth inconveniencing so many electrons.

    4. “These commentators are pushing the leftist talking points and I believe it is necessary to point out their misrepresentations.”

      There is no need to justify yourself to anyone — and especially not to those who use “troll” as a universal smear, and who demand that, instead of engaging on this blog, we perform his list of religious duties.

      Run fast from the one demanding that you sacrifice. You are the one being sacrificed. And he is the one collecting those sacrifices.

  3. Is there a single person in the ILLinois state government that can define an assault weapon? No, it is NOT something black and scary looking.


    In order to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify an amendment to that effect.

    The right to keep and bear arms is so clear, that the obvious, factual criminals are the individuals who willfully, wittingly and maliciously bring false, specious and perfidious cases, legislatures that pass unconstitutional laws, and lower courts that fail to dismiss cases involving unconstitutional acts against entities availing themselves of their 2nd Amendment rights.

    Infringe – mid 16th century: from Latin infringere, from in- ‘into’ + frangere ‘to break’.


    [ in-frinj ]
    verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

    to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

    to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don’t infringe on his privacy.


    infringe verb – in·​fringe – in ˈfrinj – infringed; infringing – transitive verb

    1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

    – “infringe a patent”

    2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

    1. FishWings. Just like the trips that Ruth Bader Ginsburg received from a rich guy. I understand. You wouldn’t know about those from your go to news source MSNBC. Would you please just for once give us an educated opinion.

        1. FishWings, I pointed out Ginsburg’s paid for trips and your best response is to say that I am blissfully ignorant. Why not instead respond to the facts that I present. The only conclusion can be is that you have no cognizant response so you stoop to the ignorant comment.

  5. Democrats throw this red meat to their base so they can virtue-signal about doing something to make people safer. Meanwhile, states with some of the strictest gun control laws have the highest murder rates. The reason, of course, is because Democrats focus on guns and ignore crime. This is by design — if Democrats were to focus on crime, they’d have to support police, support tough anti-crime laws, fire all Soros soft-on-crime prosecutors, and reject no-bail proposals. The Democrat base wants it both ways: they want to be safe, but they also want to reduce police and coddle criminals. It’s all just part of their natural state of delusion.

    1. GioCon,

      Yes I agree with you to a point.
      The trouble is that these politicians actually believe that they are doing good.
      Oh that teen gangbanger turned out the way he did because he didn’t have any after school programs.
      When the reality is that he’s making more than minimum wage committing a criminal act.

      When his idea of a family is his gang, not a nuclear family at home.
      That killing someone makes him a man, not just some punk arsed kid. [sic]

      Want to blame someone… go back to those liberal dems who advanced social programs that had good intentions, yet unintended consequences of destroying the nuclear family for inner city blacks.


  6. Turley tries to legitimize Barrett by claiming: “….I noted that the Second Amendment could prove one of her most interesting legacy areas of jurisprudence.” That person’s only “legacy” will be that of being nominated by someone who cheated to get into the White House and then lying to get onto the SCOTUS so she could overturn precedence that had stood for 50 years. Turley tries to pretend that Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Alito are anything other than politicians wearing black robes. History will not view her or Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Alito kindly or with any semblance of respect. But, the disciples are hungry for chum, so Turley delivers.

    1. @Gigi,
      Your contempt for the law is duly noted.

      RvW was a poorly crafted law that was written w good intentions. Many here may not remember pre RvW. It was before my time… yet in the 70’s and early 80’s post RvW physicians talked about life before it.

      Also w the lack of RvW, the laws reverted to states rights and thats it.
      The problem is the inconsistency in their laws. How do you handle gross fetal malformations? (That’s the actual medical term for massive malformations.)
      Or in instances of diagnosed fetal deaths? (They induce labor and its a late term abortion done for the health of the mother.)

      But I digress… you’re not interested in understanding medicine, fetal development, etc … just want to toss a punch at Turley.

      You point to conservative justices (ignoring Thomas) while the same could be said of the liberal justices too. RBG was very political in her views along w being very liberal. Yet all of the Justices are doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. You want to blame RvW being overturned… you can blame that on the chief justice in taking up a case which allowed it to happen.


    2. NUTCHACHACHA, was it cheating when you accepted unconstitutional governmental financial assistance, unconstitutional governmental affirmative action, etc., to provide yourself, at least, the appearance of being a real person?

      Do you still need it all or may America end unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    3. Gigi, I thought that you were all against election deniers and here you are denying the legitimacy of the Trump election. Syntax to Syntax in Gigi’s brain. Please repeat, please repeat I do not copy that. As election deniers go it seems that you and Trump are birds of a feather.

    4. “History will not view her or Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Alito kindly or with any semblance of respect.” That’s true if history is written by Communists. We need to make sure that doesn’t happen.

  7. “Illinois and New York have previously supplied gun rights advocates with huge victories by drafting facially unconstitutional laws. Moderate efforts at gun control are often ramped up in the legislative process to become more and more sweeping.”
    Nothing better for freedom than a dumb, overreaching, ideologue liberal. Keep pitching them in guys and gals and we’ll keep send them out of the park.

  8. @Turley,
    IIRC, the issue w Kanter v. Barr was that Barrett questioned if one was convicted of a non-violent crime (felony) should they lose their 2A rights?

    While its an indication of strong 2A rights, its actually a different and interesting question.
    Suppose you were convicted of possessing a firearm and your FOID card had expired? (In IL you need a FOID card to touch weapons or even to buy ammo. ) Its a felony.

    Do you consider that a violent crime? Even though its a paperwork error.
    Or is that a violent crime.

    Do you consider once a con, always a con regardless of the charges that you were convicted of…

    I agree that if you consider that a convicted felon who was convicted of a non-violent offense should retain their 2A rights… you probably are a stronger 2A supporter than not.


  9. It needs to made clear, towns, cities, states the pass unconstitutional law need to be held financial accountable with class action lawsuits.
    The law you pass banning an “Assault Weapon” should end up in a class action lawsuit providing the funding for everyone to buy one!
    Deus vult

    1. @David,

      You cannot sue them except for relief. They are immune from damages.

      I have to pose a question to Turley…

      Could you sue the Gov. El Fatzo, The State AG (Raoul) , and members of the state legislator who are lawyers for declaratory relief?
      The purpose is to sue where they knowingly and wantonly ignored their oath of office and crafted legislature that they knew would not be legal and infringed on citizens rights?

      The purpose isn’t to find for monetary damages but to get on record that they are guilty of violating oath of office and also their oath as a lawyer.
      If successful the next step would be to either impeach, or file a complaint with the state of IL Bar Association

      El Fatzo continues to make the legal claim that he believes that the law is constitutional.
      As if that’s a defense for his actions.


      1. “You cannot sue them except for relief. They are immune from damages.”

        Maybe it’s time to change that. Make successful litigation paid from their public pensions to the plaintiff directly, plus 12% for the lawyers, for any civil suit lost.

        1. @JAFO
          It will never happen. Turley could give you a huge long winded explanation of why this is…

          I’m floating the idea for a declaratory judgement where there’s no financial gain just a judgement that they violated their oath of office along w discovery to see what they knew and when they knew it. The key here is to out them for their shenanigans.

          While that is more over PICA, the Naperville lawsuit is a bit different. Its a city ordinance that went into effect prior to PICA and the ordinance is similar to the one Highland Park did years ago after the CCW law. Again here… the City defended themselves by ignoring Bruen. The Federal judges here in Northern IL ignored Bruen altogether and decided that ‘public safety’ outweighed the individual freedom. (Which is counter to the 2A and SCOTUSs rulings…)

          Not to mention that none of these laws do anything in terms of public safety.


          1. Not disagreeing with the facts of *this* case. I’m proposing a possible solution for every official who abuses their powers, similar to the way we prosecute bad cops who act unlawfully during the execution of their “official duties”. As it is, there are zero consequences for higher-ups-in-government employees – they can do as they please, knowing their office and public pensions are literally untouchable via a civil complaint to the courts simply by *claiming* they acted within the bounds of their power. They’re always given ‘the benefit of the doubt’ first, then more often than not, if any internal investigation happens at all, no wrong-doing is found. We shouldn’t continue to allow the status quo simply because ‘we’ve always done it this way’. My thoughts are to make some now-legal actions illegal, via new legislation that makes official’s actions accountable in ways they aren’t today. Continuously (more than once or twice, for example) passing laws that aren’t constitutional should be considered an abuse of power against the public and could be the first chargeable offense. I concede it would be an uphill climb getting there, but dismissing the thought outright might be shortsighted.

            1. @JAFO,
              No, I mean what you suggest will never happen.

              You have to give legislature some immunity.

              Imagine if they didn’t have it. You could sue them over any law you don’t like. Imagine getting sued by 100 people at a time and having to defend against each case separately.

              Violating oath of office could be shown but you would have to prove intent.


              1. They have nearly unlimited immunity now. That immunity is ‘working’ more and more *against* The People as each session passes. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition, either. Just something more along the lines of what happens now when dealing with bad-actor police. The principle is sound and deserves more consideration than, ‘never gonna happen’. Besides, it’s my dream, not yours. Let me have it. 😁

      2. I sued my town the SECOND time they flooded my shed, they came up with some fancy excuse the first time but when it happened again…

  10. My guess is that Anon is a troll. He learned from leftist training to go onto a non-leftist website and throw out irrelevant questions relating to God and the Bible. Then the regular commenters will spend the rest of the day responding to him and not discuss the topic at hand. Don’t take the bait.

    1. Svelaz as well. However, the trolls are not the problem. They do what they always do. The problem is with those that do the bidding of the trolls by elevating them to a status of relevancy. It’s a shame.

  11. To ATS, God gave us free will to make decisions. If god wanted robots to stand around and do nothing but praise his greatness then he could have made us all robots. He established the world and us and released upon us the decisions to make in life. The world is the world and good and evil live there and it’s our choice what path we follow and where we end up at the end of that journey. When something bad happens to me, I look at myself and whether my actions caused this calamity and how did I respond to the calamity. I don’t blame god. He has shown the path to our salvation. It’s up to us whether we take it. Again that is all in regards to god.
    As far as other human beings, well that is an entirely different question. Turning the other cheek is a little more complex than what is said in the Christian Bible and how we respond to it. One hand slapping you is very different from the other hand slapping you and how you respond.
    Being peaceful is one thing, being suicidal is another. If you study the Bible you will know there is a difference.

  12. As “this is a standard response to such an emergency filing”, then the merits for this move should go those justices (and their law clerks) who established this SCOTUS procedere in general & to Chief Justice in particular as he assigned Justice Barrett to this duties.

    This brings me to an opinion draft which is circulated within the scientific community for a while: Professor Trudor Adam Thinkby, a David M. Rubenstein Fellow, researches on this question:

    “What qualities does a Commander in Chief need to have in these challenging times in order to perform his duties in the best possible way?”

    He implemented results from empirical researchers who found out that groups perform better than individuals in decision outcomes. Consequently our “Commander in Chief” should communicate those decission to general public that a high level pannel prepared for him.

    I think we have already implemented Professor Thinkby’s research findings!

  13. so let me guess Democrats will define assault weapons as anything this side a cap gun

    1. Actually, the libs have tried to ban the thumb and forefinger too, so the cap gun is easy picking.

      Anything is OK in the effort to subject the individual to the will of “the government” in everything he/she wants to do.

    2. @guyventer

      Yes, they could do that.
      However in doing so, they would create a complete ban on firearms.
      Clearly against the 2A and also SCOTUS’s McDonald vs. City of Chicago ban on handguns.


  14. Our Constitution is a magnificent example of interrelated dependencies. Our right to bear arms reflects both our needs as individuals to protect ourselves and our property as well as our right as members of a militia to protect our state. James Madison said it well in The Federalist, No. 46, January 29, 1788: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of….” Unlike the monarchies of Europe and elsewhere at the time, America was an experimental attempt at self-government by and for the people. Thus, the protection of the state and the people rested not on a monarch or some central authority but, instead, on those having the responsibility of preserving and protecting the government, namely, the people. The etiology of this right is found in the first three words of our Constitution: “We the people….” Barrett understands this.

    1. “Our right to bear arms reflects both our needs as individuals to protect ourselves and our property…”

      – JJC

      That’s like saying Cialis works for ED and BPH.

      And Ozempic works for diabetes and weight loss.


      The law requires patients to use pharmaceuticals as prescribed.

      The 2nd Amendment does not include, and in fact excludes, multiple uses.

      The 2nd Amendment was not adopted for home defense or any other purpose.

      The right to keep and bear was codified to allow Americans to throw off a tyrannical and oppressive government, assuring the security of a free state.

      Presumably, any level of government could deny the use of kept and borne arms for anything other than throwing off an offensive government after joining a militia of one’s choice.

      Presumably, individuals have a right to self-defense.

      It’s complicated, right?

  15. The second amendment needs to be changed. But not in the way gun haters think. It needs to be updated to state that the citizens’ right to bear arms shall be equal to standard issued arms of the military.

    1. @Jim

      Nope. Its fine the way it is.
      Doesn’t need that.

      The issue isn’t in the 2A, but in Heller,McDonald, and now Bruen (plus other laws) where the question is ‘Dangerous and Unusual Weapons’.

      Note that there’s a case where a metal cut out was being sold which would take an AR-15 and make it full auto.
      The kicker… it only works on a few and older ~30yr old designs. Long before the ’94 ban… manufacturers made changes to the AR-15 platform which made it difficult to use M-16 parts in an AR-15 rifle. (Certain parts would fit, although things like a full auto sear (trigger group) are illegal to possess without licenses and a tax stamp. ) It is possible to modify the rifle, however that too is illegal and requires a bit of skill and metal working knowledge.


      1. Why is/should it be illegal to have what our military issues? Why is it illegal to modify somethi that I orn to make it better? It’s not illegal to own the same word processor as the govt to express your freedom of speech. should we only be allowed to have a quill and ink?

        1. @Jim
          If you have to ask, you need to do a bit more research into the issue.
          Start with the National Firearms Act and its upgraded provisions along with the SCOTUS rulings. Remember ‘Dangerous and Unusual Weapons’. A claymore mine along w a flamethrower are two examples that fit that description.

          Now you can own machine guns in 42 states if you pass additional background checks and pay your tax stamp. (Turley actually talked about it if IIRC)
          IL doesn’t allow NFA items. (SBRs, Select fire /auto, suppressors….)

          As to converting a weapon… that’s been a law on the books for years. You modify your gun… to full auto… you go to jail. Gun owners won’t bother to defend your actions. You take a rifle and make it an SBR… no good. Same for a pistol. That’s why there are issues w the ATF’s pistol brace rulings. But again that’s another issue.


          1. I guess you are missing my point. I never stated a case for claymores or flamethrowers (Although an argument can be made for thse too). Just standard issue military equipment. I wasn’t asking if the things you state are illegal, but why are they illegal. What constitutional grounds is there for supressing anyones right to modify something they bought or create themselves? There are no such restrictions on free speech. I can own and modify a word processor to allow me to have greater ability to express my first amendment rights.

            1. @Jim22,

              Ok… you can own a pre-1986 M-16 if you live in one of the 42 states that allow owning NFA firearms. You would first have to be able to afford it, jump thru the background checks and get the tax stamp. The M-16 not only has to have been made before 1986, but also must have the appropriate paperwork. (transferable) This is true of the M-14 as well. [A Select fire M14 EBR Mod 0 would be awesome ]

              But this is different from creating an illegal firearm. Like a sawed off shotgun.
              I used the claymore mine and the flame thrower as examples of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’.

              So to your point, you can own certain select fire / automatic weapons in some situations…

              Note that you cannot try to equate this with ‘free speech’. But even here not everything is allowed. Hate speech, is not free speech, nor is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

              There are limits to free speech, as well as limits to what firearms you can own.
              The key is that those laws should be limited.
              Personally I’d want a .45 ACP SMG for personal defense. And make it an SBR over a PCC (Pistol Caliber Carbine) Suppressed.
              Or a 300BLK in the same configuration. (Frangible rounds to stop potential over penetration.) 10mm will work but .45ACP is cheaper and just as effective for most situations.

              Yet in IL… beyond the cost… that will never happen.


              1. “Note that you cannot try to equate this with ‘free speech’. But even here not everything is allowed. Hate speech, is not free speech, nor is yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.”

                There is no such thing as hate speech. It can not exist if you have the inalienable right to free speech. “Yelling fire” is an over used example. It is only ulawfull if it results in an action causing harm to another.
                Here is an article talking about it.

                Saying you can own a pre 86 automatic rifle is not really saying you can own one. Again, I have to do nothing to excercise my right to free speech. I shouldn’t have to go through extra steps to own a fire arm.

            2. No constitutional right is absolute. Generally, rights are balanced against compelling government interests (at a very high level). The Court’s role is to determine where to draw the line.

              If you think a world in which citizens should be able to legally own nuclear weapons is a good one (just because they bought or created them), then you have pretty fringe views on the matter (not to mention views that do not accord with basic concepts of constitutional jurisprudence).

    2. “IT’S THE [BEAR], STUPID!”


      If an individual can bear an “arm,” an individual can keep an “arm.”

      Once the militias begin to win, all bets are off.

      If government troops can bear it, actual Americans can too.

      “All is fair in love and war.”

      – Proverb

      It’s Lincolnesque.

      After “Crazy Abe” killed one million Americans, tore up the country and ravaged America’s fundamental law, Lincoln rewrote the Constitution, the statutes and the history books.

      The Book of America is fiction.

  16. Her dissent in Kanter v. Barr as an appellate judge was a powerful defense of Second Amendment rights.

    That got my day off to a good start. State legislators in blue states undoubtedly know these types of regulations will not survive 2A scrutiny, but they don’t care because their purpose is to win political brownie points and they know their electorate. Re-election is the name of the game, and if Scotus precedent gets set opposite to their stated views on gun control, they can live with that. . . . All of which creates a delicious political cocktail for freedom-loving Americans.

Leave a Reply