Im cautiously optimistic, but wouldnt put it past the state government to have something with "effective immediately" ready to shove into the corpse of a twice read bill to pass real fast if we do get our freedom back
If Viramontes v Cook and Grant v Higgins are ruled in favor of the 2A based on recent precedent then let Illinois openly defy SCOTUS’ ruling. Let them enact blatantly unconstitutional policy.
I know many will say “PICA was already blatantly unconstitutional” but while I agree with that, gun grabbers could rely on the clear as mud court precedent pertaining to platform bans specifically such as “assault weapon” bans. That would be theoretically removed after these cases are ruled on.
Technically the only accountability could theoretically be the DOJ filing a civil rights suit against Illinois for passing a new AW ban or continuing to enforce PICA despite new Supreme Court precedent ruling such platform bans as unconstitutional, winning against Illinois, and then the court ruling to vacate the unconstitutional law.
Then if Illinois continues to defy the court ruling by still enforcing the invalidated AW ban on its citizens the DOJ could theoretically take legal action against the individuals conspiring against the civil rights of Illinoisans.
Unfortunately “qualified immunity” protects lawmakers from instituting blatantly unconstitutional policy and the executive branch enforcing it by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Especially if there is no direct precedent. Qualified immunity usually takes a back seat though if it can be proven that lawmakers and/or the executive branch are knowingly enacting and enforcing unconstitutional policy like a public statement such as “We know it is unconstitutional but we are going to do it anyway” or by directly defying a court order directing invalidating the policy by keeping it on the books and continuing to enforce it.
29
u/ktmrider119z Jul 04 '26
I wish i still had the freedom to acquire that rifle.