I have previously written how Chicago and New York have been the gifts that keep giving for the gun rights community in supplying a line of flagrantly unconstitutional gun laws that have resulted in major wins before the Supreme Court. On December 2, 2026, the Supreme Court is poised to hear oral arguments in Viramontes et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, et al., on the constitutionality of another gun ban involving semi-automatic rifles. Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke has filed a last-minute effort to dismiss the case that may actually backfire in emphasizing the very aspect of the case with the greatest potential vulnerability for Chicago and gun control advocates.The case took a surprising turn recently when Viramontes asked to be removed as a party without explaining why he had changed his mind. Whatever the reason, he clearly does not want to be immortalized in what could be one of the most impactful Second Amendment cases in history.Viramontes is one of two cases to be heard on the issue. The second case, Grant v. Higgins, is out of the Second Circuit. Again, the Second and Seventh Circuits are a case of rounding up the usual suspects challenging Second Amendment rights.
Burke filed a “Suggestion of Mootness.”
What Burke is arguing is that, if Viramontes is allowed to withdraw, the other individual petitioner, Christopher Khaya, lacks standing in the case. Viramontes unquestionably sought “to own a Smith and Wesson Military & Police AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle.” However, Khaya sought to purchase an IMI Galil which is not based on the AR-15 platform and falls outside of the question presented before the Court. She argues:
“Khaya has not stated that he wishes to own an AR-15. Instead, he ‘wants an IMI [Industrial Military Industries] Galil semiautomatic rifle.’ In district court, petitioners took care to explain that the IMI Galil weapon is not an AR-15-style weapon: While they initially “agreed with Defendant’s description of this weapon as” an ‘AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle,’ they later ‘amended their response’ to ‘clarif[y] that the firearm in question is not an AR-15 style rifle but is largely based on the AK-47 design.’
While the Cook County ordinance applies to AK47-style weapons, the question presented in this Court is specifically limited to ‘AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.'”
As a threshold matter, the reference to “similar semiautomatic rifles” would seem to give the Court ample “room at the elbows” for considering either platform.
Moreover, the Court has previously declined to drop cases with last-minute efforts by parties to bow out or moot cases. Indeed, this has been something of a signature of gun control advocates in seeking to avoid review in past cases.
A similar situation presented itself last year in Little v. Hecox, one of two cases on transgender athletes. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Hecox, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. Hecox clearly did not like the prospects on appeal and sought to withdraw the case after the granting of certiorari, but District Court Judge David Nye denied that effort as coming too late. The Court went on to rule on both cases.
More importantly, Burke’s effort could work to broaden rather than narrow the review of the Court. The filing may push the Court to reaffirm that the ruling applies to other platforms, not just the AR-15.
Burke argues that the Galil is not similar to the AR-15, is not in common use, and that Khaya said he would use it primarily at a gun range rather than for self-defense. She notably does not question whether both weapons are banned, which is a technical point that gun advocates have dismissed.
If successful, Burke hopes to force a cascading failure. By first taking out Viramontes, she wants to then take out Khaya and then challenge the standing of the organization plaintiffs, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation.
It is unlikely to succeed, but even if successful, the effort would not prevent an eventual ruling given the companion case in Grant v. Higgins.
Here is the filing: Suggestion of Mootness
A civil war in the U.S. would resemble Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Turley is an excellent commentator and lawyer and has a way of explaining clearly every topic he takes on.
Citizens need guns to protect themselves from the government; but when citizens shoot cops (agents of the government), they go to prison. Help me to reconcile these two things.
Reconciliation Here:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– American Founders And Revolutionaries
The NRA was taken over by America gun manufacturers to sell that lie and the lie that more guns means more safety. Which is why America stands alone in the number of little children gunned down in schools.
Actually, the NRA is a grassroots organization with multifarious activities.
==
They understand what you want, and that is why you are fought.
The NRA hasn’t been grass roots for 49 years. It’s an advertising arm.
This was all done to boost gun sales.
@Anonymous–
Your statement that the NRA
“an advertising arm.”
is, of course, nonsense. Your lack of understanding in ré the history of the NRA is conspicuously showing here.
Yes, it is true that at the 1977 annual convention
“hardline activists led a successful revolt to depose the old guard leadership. This transformation redirected the NRA’s focus toward aggressive political lobbying, campaign spending, and opposing all forms of gun control.“
Nary a word about becoming the gun manufaturers “advertising arm”
Well prior to the “1977 revolt” it had become apparent to many in the NRA’s leadership that many in Federal government had set their sights on outright bans on firearms ownership, particularly outlawing handguns in toto.
Recall that in 1968
You might also look at this article from the Christian Science Monitor if a reference from Wikipedia is insufficient:
https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0109/010927.html
This was an amazingly draconian proposal, but it was never acted upon.
However, also in 1968, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968 which, while not as draconian as the recommendation of the Eisenhower Commission, was sufficient to alarm the “hardliners” in the NRA.
So yes, there was a “revolt” in 1977, but it was only in reaction to what with anyone with a brain could see: the U.S. Government wanted our guns.
And also yes, in later years the gun manufacturers played an important role for the NRA. Increasingly strapped for funds as the fight to protect gun rights became more desperate and expensive, the gun manufacturers, who had a vested interest in seeing the “right to keep bear arms” continue, played an important role in the survival of the NRA. It was simply a marriage of convenience.
There never was a conspiracy by the gun manufacturers to take over the NRA and turn it into an advertising agency.
Granted, someone must anchor the bottom of the Bell curve, and we congratulate you on the excellent job you are doing.
Sure.
Common gun owners – such as those that belong to the NRA – do NOT shoot people at will, Police or otherwise.
Nutcases that steal arms, are convicted criminals, or are psychos, DO kill people – and NOT just with AR’s or AK’s.
Sure – go ahead and ban guns – then only criminals and wackos will have them.
Lastly, compare the Ukraine to Iran. One, allowed private gun ownership – which is a main reason the Ukraine didn’t fall within a week. Now look at Iran – who allowed gun ownership – until 1979. ZEO chance of overthrowing their moronic ‘government’.
Cooke County’s Suggestion of Mootness is dual purpose. One is candor with the Court by notice of events that could affect its decision. The other is tactical. Now it gets interesting. Plaintiff in the transgender case gave the District Court reasons for wanting to be dismissed from that case. And Judge Nye denied the motion for untimeliness and discomfort over manipulation. Nobody but Viramonte knows why that party wants dismissal in the current case. I’m thinking the District Judge on Viramonte’s necessary motion to drop from the case will expect and examine the grounds for the motion. Notice Judge Nye expressly recognized the strong interest of Idaho in being heard by the Supreme Court. We’ll see if the judge in this case is mindful of that reasoning.
To posit that there are “…flagrantly unconstitutional gun laws…” when all gun laws are irrefutably unconstitutional is to ignore or nullify the “manifest tenor” of the 2nd Amendment and to disparage the Founders and Framers.
THE RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
___________________________________________
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well your expansive view of the 2nd amendment certainly goes beyond what conservative justices said in majority opinions in Heller (Scalia in 2008), McDonald (Alito in 2010), and Bruen (Thomas in 2022).
The issue is not whether my interpretation conforms to the opinions of particular Supreme Court justices, conservative or otherwise. The issue is whether those opinions conform to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not the author of the Second Amendment, nor does its interpretation supersede the Amendment’s original meaning. The Constitution is the standard by which the Court must be judged—not the other way around. My position is grounded in the Amendment’s actual language, its original intent, and its manifest tenor, not in the Court’s willingness to recognize only a portion of its protections.
The original 2nd Amendment purpose was to have a civilian army at the ready rather than to have a standing army at the control of the President. It no longer has a purpose.
The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is unqualified as to purpose.
Slaves were never allowed to keep and bear arms. That establishes that it was never considered a right. There have been, and remain, qualifications that infringe on that right. Even Republican Saint Ronald Reagan signed a law to infringe on the right when he saw free Black men carrying guns.
Ask the citizens of Iran.
Who said a private citizen is also a member of a standing army at the control of the President?
“The original 2nd Amendment purpose was to have a civilian army . . .”
That is false.
Every Amendment had the same purpose: To enshrine the protection of an individual right, and to limit the power of government.
Burke thought semi-automatic meant the same DI action as a AR15 and had to file to dismiss for cover of being ignorant?
Oh, boy.
The 2nd allows and does not prohibit automatic arms.
The 2nd allows and does not prohibit C-4 demolition blocks—equivalent to sticks of dynamite—that constitute arms that can be kept and borne by individuals and which are standard issue for U.S. troops.
@Upstate
Remember when Biden claimed an AR-15 would cut a person half? There is no end to leftist lies, and that has not changed in light of Tuesday.
Remember when Trump created the word “covefe”?
I expect with a 100 round magazine cutting a relatively thin person in half can be accomplished with an AR-15; maybe add a bump stock to speed the work. Certainly one could make a decent tear-off perforation.
So would a shotgun with the right rounds in it.
Try harder.
Have Republicans used guns, any gun, bow, knife, automobile, bomb, other unlawfully domestically?
For Chicago, the outcome really doesn’t matter. Chicago is, remarkably, in a death spiral of its own choosing.
Too bad, since growing up in Milwaukee, I enjoyed my many ventures there to visit the Art Institute, a great place for kids to visit.
Something very strange is going on in Washington.
Both Vance and Don Jr. have publicly and simultaneously stated that the Iran war was a mistake and that it cost the GOP the election. Keep in mind that Don Jr. played a major role in convincing his father to choose Vance as VP. They are very close.
No one has pushed back against these statements. What if this view is widely shared in the cabinet, but as yet people are not willing to go public? Maybe this joint announcement is an attempt to push other cabinet members to join them in this position.
Perhaps Vance is trying to initiate the 25th Amendment, remove Trump, and then name Don Jr. as his VP. They would have to do this before January 3, when the new Congress is sworn in. The appointment of a new VP after a vacancy occurs requires a majority vote of both houses to confirm the appointment. Maybe they think the lame duck Congress will go along with this plan.
Talk about conspiracy theorists!
Checks and Balances.
I told Xi jingping anonymously, I’ve never seen such wailing and gnashing of teeth as over at Prof Turley’s blog – Res ipsa loquacious. The despair is palpable.
*the MAGA pod .. . Spineless MAGA Podcasters
With that motivation Trump could have a slip-and-fall accident while Don Jr. looks down from the top of the staircase in horror.
Vance has zero shot at being Prez.
Newsom will be the next Prez – because the majority is STUPID.
“. . . last-minute efforts by parties to bow out or moot cases.” (JT)
That’s the Left’s version of: “I left the company to spend more time with my family.”
Uh, no. You left to avoid the embarrassment of being escorted out of the building.
Joe Biden assumed that pilots of those F-15 are likely to fire on or drop bombs on their fellow citizens. Not a certainty in this world. Rifles still determine politics as a last result (se Mao Zedong) and is a very personal determination by a citizen that the government has gone off the rails. Even drones require human interaction to this point. Mr. Obama used drone strikes all over the Middle East to take out terrorists and an occasional America Citizen. I hear the number 500 often quoted. Are their distinctions between drones now and “assault drones”, “interceptor drones” or just drones.
The M1 Garand was adopted by the US Army in 1936, 90 years ago, for those who are math challenged. The M14 was adopted in 1957. Both used by the military, of course but also sold to US Citizens as auto loading rifles by legitimate gun stores. The M1 was sold also thru the civilian marksmanship program by the military and about 100,000 + M14s are soon to be sold to citizens through the same program. The M14 had a selector (in the military) for automatic fire (not in those sold to civilians) and the M1 could also easily be modified to fire automatically. M1, M14, Ar 15, Ar 10, M16 all auto loading or self loading rifles and sold to civilians.
It’s time for SCOTUS to give us an expanded decision that ends this stupidity of the “Assault rifle”. All rifles are dual use like a knife, pitchfork, bow and arrow, crossbow. Militaries all over the world have used bow and arrows for silent attack. Is it an Assault weapon? An “ assault Bow”. Englishmen were ordered by the crown to keep their longbows handy and practice on a daily basis and they also used them to feed their families. But they also used them to protect their own “castle”.
Is that sledgehammer an assault mace or just a a sledgehammer. It is self loading and can be used repeatedly just like an automatic. In your toolkit is that a hammer or an “assault hammer”, is that metal ice scraper just a scraper or an “assault scraper”. My wife took out a large possum who charged out of our woodpile at her. He failed to note the “assault scraper” in her hands. Truly a fatal mistake.
Is that collection of knives in your Wusthof-Trident knife block just for civilian use of is it “gasp” a large assault knife. Some bigger than a Bowie knife. One never knows for sure.
Dynamite is the same way. Dual use. It should be unregulated for the same reason. I am unsure why there are even age limits on buying and carrying firearms. Plenty of responsible 12-year-olds.
Preparing for an invasion with weapons on the same level as the invaders carry? On that concept, every family in America should have tactical and strategic nuclear bombs. There’s no credible chance that a large response by civilians is going to be required in the US using guns. As seen in Uvalde, Texas – over 175 guns in the hands of supposedly trained police officers were unable to stop a single gunman from killing children.
Dream on GEB. A gun in the home is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime than to defend against a crime. It will never be used to save the country from invaders.
Ah yes. I don’t know why it is not my habit to notice the author of a comment before I read it, but for whatever reason I don’t. And here is another flatulent explosion of colonic methane and mixed malodorous sulfurous fumes from the old reliable Anonymous. Funny how his articles can so often be identified by the odor.
FWIW, can an “Ignore” feature be added to the comment section so that habitual gas generators expulsions do not appear at the readers election?
An ad hominem attack is the best you have?
And you my fine friend have forgotten the verbiage of the 2nd Amendment,”…shall not be infringed”.
…and forgot Heller and Bruen. Keeping and bearing arms is now an individual right. Additionally murders committed with so called assault rifles make up a tiny fraction of gun crimes. Even if you add all rifles the number pales in comparison to handguns. But we must not take weapons out of the hands of those who are committing the vast majority of murders. Nor can we punish those perps adequately.
The 2nd allows and does not prohibit C-4 demolition blocks—equivalent to sticks of dynamite—that constitute arms that can be kept and borne by individuals and which are standard issue for U.S. troops.
Uvalde, where they could not even see the moron?
Plus, you expect them to open fire when there are dozens of kids in the crossfire?
A pretty good comment, but not completely accurate.
Assault RIFLES are very real, starting with the German Sturmmgewehr 44. (Sturmgewehr = assault + rifle) The Stg44 was select-fire: semiautomatic or full-auto, and this fact has characterized assault rifles ever since.
But full-auto makes it a machine gun, and a law passed in the 80s made it impossible, with few exceptions, for civilians to own machine guns produced after a certain date.
Enter the so-called assault weapon. These were semi-auto-only versions of assault rifles. Chinese companies shipped hundreds, perhaps thousands of semiauto versions of the Russian AK-47, along withe crates and crates of steel cartridge ammo.
But unhinged individuals used these semiauto rifles to commit massacres. GHW Bush banned their import by executive order. Then Congress banned purchase of all such semi autos, including AR-15 types, for ten years.
GEB,
“Joe Biden assumed that pilots of those F-15 are likely to fire on or drop bombs on their fellow citizens.”
That is an order I would of refused.
You’re no fighter pilot. You would’ve let Flight 93 hit the Capitol.
Fight pilots did nothing to stop any of the hijacked aircraft on 9/11.
Recent years have made plain what the objects of the ‘gun control’ lobby actually are. One is political messaging – i.e. sticking the blame for violent crime in the slums with hobbyists of various sorts who live elsewhere (especially in exurban, small town, and rural areas where violent crime is odd). The other is to disarm ordinary people so they cannot defend themselves against Soros minions and the criminals and crazies who are the Democratic Party’s clients. (They made use of confused emotions-driven creatures like Pete Shields and Sarah Brady as frontmen).
Not You DoDo. And we thought the DoDo Bird was extinct
it seems the professor is putting out these nonsensical articles while waiting for Fox News to give him something worth spinning about the results of the election.
Seriously. The greatest flip in recent history and the professor is silent on the gravity of the outcome of the vote? MAGA definitely doesn’t know what to do now.
Get your own blog loser. Stop cluttering up PT blog with your dumb comments.
Hey loser, see what happens when people use AI too much? https://nypost.com/2026/11/06/business/dossier-urging-democrats-to-go-to-war-with-corporate-america-ridiculed-by-party-insiders-ai-slop/ Looks like something you would write. LOL!!!!!
LOL!!!! Cry harder. It gets funnier every time.
MAGA had a good run. But all good things must come to an end.
Glad to see you finally admit MAGA was a good thing, now to be replaced by the cold reality of what is going to be the Biden economic disaster 2.0.
Oh I am not the one who comes to PT blog, everyday to cry how he wont talk about what you want him to talk about. Loser, rather you have to stalk him, your intellectual better, with your AI written nonsense. Keep coming back to cry more loser!
ROFL!!! Biden economic disaster 2.0? Trump is still in office. It’s Trump’s economic disaster that did the republicans in.
Keep crying, MAGA tears are delicious.
I never said MAGA was good thing. Only that it had a good run for its fans.
Your words, loser, “But all good things must come to an end.”
So, you swallow.
Yep.
I am a member of MAGA – but the MAGA of 2021-2024, the current one bears NO resemblance.
But, the current Democratic party bears NO resemblance of the Democratic party of even 30 years ago.
I ALSO said 6 months ago if Trump doesn’t end the war – and the tariffs NOW – the GOP is toast in November.
All good things must come to an end.
When will you?
When? I’m just getting started.
“Lawyer up!” More lawfare against people we dont like for some crime we cannot find or describe.
“DEI is back!” Whites and Asians need not apply to college.
“Woke is back!” Not even going to bother to comment on that one.
Though I’m grateful for the coverage and elucidation, what difference will it make if dems corrupt the Supreme Court? Remains to be seen, but if the activist judges we already have (along with the more recent jury nullifications/manipulations) are any indication, that difference would be precisely zero. This case itself is evidence the motivations of the modern left are the same as ever. 🤷🏽♂️
Like many, I have faith in our system because even if imperfectly, it works; that is the exact reason the modern left wishes to dismantle it. Taking speech and guns and dissolving separation of powers would do the trick.
Hey stupid the article is about Viramontes et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.
and who’s to say they don’t simply throw out the Constitution as well?
Maybe someone from the incoming administration told them not to spin their wheels, that the 2nd amendment comes under “affordability”?
Why, for months I’ve heard that great democrat economist Ro Khanna remind us all about “affordability”. Within hours after the democrats win his first words regarding “affordability” were “DEI is back”.
The shock MB has that the Democrats can do two things at the same time. Sure, it’s not on the same scale as taking 6 months to fix a pool or trying to cut all the trees on a golf course Trump doesn’t own on a weekend to skirt the Federal courts.
Libs whine about “Our democracy” , then want to control responsible AR-15, owners. The 2A protects the citizens from the government. I was brainwashed by the pledge. If it weren’t for lawyers/liars, we wouldn’t need the SOB’s.
I am afraid of my fellow citizens more than the government, and with very good reason.
Uh oh – you mean a THINKING DEM has taken another look at the merits? Holy Moly who could have known the Dems had officials that operated on more than high strung emotion and virtue signaling? Well let’s just see how they rationalize stupidity before the High Court.
They have the right to remain stupid, I may never agree with what they say, but I will defend their right to say it. I hope they ruin the wordsalad queen, again.
On June 23, 2021, President Joe Biden made the Second Amendment debate perfectly clear. He scoffed at everyone who believes that guns are necessary for We the People to protect individual liberty against Big Government. He said “If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
Think about it …
And your point is? Everyone has a right to own an F-15 based the 2nd A?
And which people?
Anonymous,
You say: “And your point is?” In other words, you missed my point. As I said to everyone (including you): “Think about it”. I did not say to anyone (including you), that anyone should ask me to tell him or her what to think.
Nuclear weapons in a civil war?
Not even Joe Biden would tale a dump on top of his dinner.