* Even that “friendly” Kankakee County judge said many similar claims about the SAFE-T Act were bogus. From a press release…
Devore argues the [assault weapons ban] law violates the Single Subject clause of the Illinois Constitution by amending a bill that has nothing to do with gun laws and it violates the three readings requirements of the Constitution through the concurrence motions that led to the bill’s passage. He also argued the new law violates the Due Process clause by not giving lawmakers enough time to read what is in the legislation before voting on it. In addition, he argued it violates the Equal Protection clause by allowing some but prohibiting others from purchasing certain types of firearms.
AP…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s lawyers argued the restraining order should be denied in part because the merits of the coming lawsuit will fail in court. The record will show the legislation was read publicly three times, that it covers a single subject — guns — and that the plaintiffs show no evidence that the exemptions for possessing the restricted weapons are doled out unfairly.
“The act’s exceptions for professionals with specialized firearms training and experience, such as law enforcement and members of the military, easily survive rational basis scrutiny,” the state’s response says.
The AG’s full response is here.
The suit may be frivolous, but it’s in Effingham County. Attorney General candidate Tom DeVore won that county with more than 80 percent of the vote.
* The state suits are mainly for show and to create a little temporary chaos. The federal lawsuit filed by ISRA will likely have more heft. From the Federalist…
While several federal appellate courts have held that similar bans on so-called assault weapons are constitutional, in June of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen held that in judging whether a challenged statute violates the Second Amendment, the appellate courts have been applying an incorrect legal standard. The Supreme Court then declared that the proper test for assessing whether a law impermissibly infringes on an individual’s Second Amendment right is whether the government can “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Then, noting that modern firearm technology differs from that available at the founding, the Supreme Court in Bruen directed the lower courts, when faced with cases “implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes” to follow “a more nuanced approach” and “conduct … reasoning by analogy” to determine whether a modern firearm regulation would be “unimaginable at the founding.” The Supreme Court added that “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are ‘central’ considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”
It is kinda weird that judges are supposed to mind-read people who’ve been dead for more than 200 years. But, whatever, they made the rules. We have to live with them. I think several valid arguments can be made under those rules that the law is constitutional, but this game is deliberately designed to be more like Calvin Ball than true deliberation.
* Speaking of ISRA, Richard Pearson was interviewed by WBEZ’s Sasha-Ann Simons today. An excerpt…
Simons: There’s a Gallup poll out from November of 2022, saying that 57% of Americans are in support of stricter gun laws. I imagine that is due to the fact that tens of thousands of folks are dying every year, Richard, in this country from gunshot wounds. It’s a fact. Mass shootings, they’re on the rise. Are you ignoring that, like the state representative suggested?
Pearson: No, I’m not ignoring that, but you’re ignoring the numbers. You know, about 80…
Simons: What numbers am I ignoring?
Pearson: I’m gonna tell you if you shut up for a minute.
Simons: Excuse me?
Whew.
A few seconds after that exchange, Simons understandably shut down the interview.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Good move…
* Daily Herald last week…
A Facebook post by Lake County Sheriff John Idleburg Thursday night expressing his support for the state’s ban on high-powered weapons prompted more than 2,000 comments, both from detractors and supporters, within 24 hours. […]
Several critics of Idleburg’s stance brought up his race. One commenter questioned how Idleburg ever became a police officer, to which another user replied, “color.”
“I would really hope in the year 2023, people would not use race or other protected status to disrespect others, but unfortunately, I have seen some of the comments where people have been very insulting over my race,” Idleburg said. “I won’t let the racist comments disparage the unbelievably hardworking and dedicated staff we have at the sheriff’s office.”
The post is here.
Today…
To the People of Lake County:
We are the ten (10) Illinois State Senators and Representatives that represent the overwhelming majority of you and your families in Lake County. Last week Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act which joins eight (8) other states in banning the sale of assault weapons, and adopts other essential public safety measures like banning the sale of high capacity magazines, fighting illegal gun trafficking, and expanding our red flag laws.
We are grateful to our Lake County leaders like State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart, Sheriff John Idleburg, and Lake County Board members who have stood in support of these life-saving new laws. Our communities continue to heal not just from the Highland Park Fourth of July mass shooting, but from individual gun violence, suicide by firearm, school lockdowns for our children, and other trauma resulting from gun violence.
Sadly, some elected officials in other parts of the state have pledged to ignore their oath of office with the intention of not enforcing the law. Even worse, cowardly anonymous social media accounts have turned to threats and racism against our elected officials.
Please know that your senators and representatives will continue to do everything in our power to keep your community safe, and will stand in strong support of our local leaders who are doing the same.
Sen. Mary Edly Allen, 31st District
Sen. Adrianne Johnson, 30th District
Sen. Julie Morrison, 29th District
Rep. Jonathan Carroll, 57th District
Rep. Daniel Didech, 59th District
Rep. Laura Faver Dias, 62nd District
Rep. Joyce Mason, 61st District
Rep. Rita Mayfield, 60th District
Rep. Bob Morgan, 58th District
Rep. Nabeela Syed, 51st District
* Meanwhile…
*** UPDATE 1 *** More heat on the DuPage County Sheriff from the area’s congressional delegation…
Today, U. S. Representatives Sean Casten (IL-06), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), and Bill Foster (IL-11) sent a letter to DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick expressing concern over his January 11th statement that he will not enforce the Protect Illinois Communities Act (H.B. 5471). The legislation bans the sale and distribution of assault-style weapons, high-capacity magazines, and switches in Illinois.
“As Sheriff, you do not have the authority to set enforcement priorities based on your personal views of a law’s constitutionality” the lawmakers wrote. “Moreover, by choosing not to enforce the law, you will put the safety of DuPage residents and law enforcement officers at risk. To that end, we request that you immediately rescind your January 11, 2023, statement and clarify that you will uphold your office’s mission statement, including your duty to ‘enforce the laws of the State of Illinois and the county of DuPage in a fair and impartial manner.’ It is clear that your statement was misguided and erroneous due to the widespread condemnation from DuPage County residents, several county board members, and state legislators.”
Earlier this month, the Illinois General Assembly passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act, subsequently signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker. On January 13th, DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick announced that, due to his personal beliefs about H. B. 5471, he would not enforce the law in DuPage County.
In October 2022, the DuPage County Board voted to approve a resolution in support of legislation banning the sale of assault-style weapons.
The letter is here.
* Related…
* Catholic bishops applaud Illinois weapons ban: “The Catholic Conference of Illinois would like to commend the Illinois General Assembly and Governor J B Pritzker on banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines with the passage of House Bill 5471,” read a statement posted on the website of the state Catholic conference. “Too many times our state has witnessed the horror of mass shootings, and we hope this legislation will help to provide some peace in our communities going forward,” the bishops continued.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:38 pm:
===be more like Calvin Ball than true deliberation.===
Like an appetizer Easter egg, I was unaware of Rich’s depth of all things to that exquisite comic.
Couldn’t just let that egg sit out there.
The context, even Hobbes would agree you understand the misunderstandable.
- Captain Obvious - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:38 pm:
So Ms Simon rudely interrupts Mr Pearson before he can get to the meat of his answer and is then offended when she is treated rudely right back? Typical of the entitlement displayed by liberal reporters and “journalists.” Mr Pearson should have “understandably” ended the interview when he was prevented from answering the question without interruption.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:41 pm:
===So Ms Simon rudely interrupts===
Oh, you poor little snowflake. She asked him what numbers she was allegedly ignoring.
But go ahead and suck your thumb. You want a cup of cocoa too?
- Lowdrag - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:44 pm:
So what about those who have specialized training but have retired from military and no longer in law enforcement?
- Mason born - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:46 pm:
Rich,
Thanks for including the Federalist piece it’s a good summation written in easy language.
Mr. Pearson should let someone else handle the interviews if he cannot control his temper.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:53 pm:
As for common use. The 50 bmg rifles banned aren’t in common use mainly because they’re very expensive to buy, 7-10k, and shoot, $3-5 per round. They’re not used in crimes in the US looks like 18 in history, being very heavy and very long. The best case for banning may well be the least used in crimes.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:54 pm:
I appreciate the response of the reps coming together county-wide to push back against the nonsense claims of the sheriff.
DuPage did the same earlier in the week, in a similar format, if I remember correctly.
Unfortunately, I do not expect the same to be coming out of Will county.
- Jerry - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:54 pm:
Like I’ve said before. Historically speaking Clarence Thomas would NOT have owned a gun at that time.
- low level - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:57 pm:
Under DeVos argument, every shell bill eventually amended and passed would be unconstitutional.
- ZC - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:59 pm:
The key passage in Bruen, as regards assault weapons, is this one:
“At most, respondents can show that colonial legislatures sometimes prohibited the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’—a fact we already acknowledged in Heller. See 554 U. S., at 627. Drawing from this historical tradition, we explained there that the Second Amendment protects only the carrying of weapons that are those ‘in common use at the time,’ as opposed to those that ‘are highly unusual in society at large.’ Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ during the colonial period, they are indisputably in ‘common use’ for self-defense today. They are, in fact, ‘the quintessential self-defense weapon.’ Id., at 629. Thus, even if these colonial laws prohibited the carrying of handguns because they were considered ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ in the 1690s, they provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today.”
The interesting therefore is that to extend Bruen to assault weapons, the justices will not be mind-reading people dead for centuries. Apparently the dead people wanted the contemporary Supreme Court to sort of mind-read the present day,and decide whether AR-15s are no longer “highly unusual” and “in common use.”
Clearly there is a spectrum between handguns and AR-15s, but what is the magic threshold, where AR-15s are closer to handguns than, say, bazookas?
That’s where the modern Calvinball comes in. There just is no meaningful guidance in Bruen for this. The threshold will be set where five justices want to set it in their gut. You could adopt various thresholds for whether AR-15s are no longer considered “dangerous and unusual,” and AR-15s would pass some and fail others.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 1:05 pm:
Devore, repeat after me:
Enrolled bill rule; enrolled bill rule, enrolled bill rule, …
- H-W - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 1:34 pm:
@ Captain Obvious
== Mr Pearson should have “understandably” ended the interview when he was prevented from answering the question. ==
Two thoughts. First, Mr. Pearson didn’t. Instead he insulted. Second, your “eye-for-an-eye” preference only ensures hate wins. If we want respect, we must model respect, even when we are offended. Only love will conquer hate. And only respect will lead to a the common good.
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 1:49 pm:
Sometimes interruptions are inadvertent. Context is everything.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 1:51 pm:
== I think several valid arguments can be made under those rules that the law is constitutional, ==
I expect most of it will survive. The courts may suggest some revisions on the magazine capacity limits. Seems a bit illogical to permit 15 with a pistol but only 10 with a rifle when both are semi-automatic with basically the same rate of fire and can be the same caliber and approximate velocity.
As to the overall ‘assault rifle’s ban, I think it may come down to what the various Justices meant when they used the phrase ‘in common use’ in some previous decisions.
And whether or not registration of existing ‘assault rifles’ is seen as overreaching.
- Chito - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:00 pm:
I LOL’d when Pearson told Simons that the AR15 isn’t a powerful weapon. “That’s just what you’re told”.
A few minutes later he insisted that this “non-powerful” weapon was necessary for home defense. Mind boggling.
- H-W - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:03 pm:
@ RNUG
You may be right about the “in common use” question. I would push that angle a bit further, but asking to clarify what is meant by “in common use” for “self-defense.”
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:08 pm:
== that this “non-powerful” weapon was necessary for home defense. ==
I’d much rather use a pistol for home defense; more flexible in close quarters.
However, the pistol I used for about 40 years was actually more powerful.
- Springfieldish - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:08 pm:
Wonder how many of the commenters were Mark Curran sock puppets.
- Henry Francis - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:10 pm:
== Typical of the entitlement displayed by liberal reporters and “journalists.” Mr Pearson should have “understandably” ended the interview when he was prevented from answering the question without interruption.==
Constantly interrupting or talking over guests isn’t a “liberal” reporter thing, unless you consider Hannity and the others on Fox News as liberal.
- Todd - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:18 pm:
You may be right about the “in common use” question. I would push that angle a bit further, but asking to clarify what is meant by “in common use” for “self-defense.”
The court answered that too in 2016
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-10078
- Hemi345 - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:19 pm:
The AR15 was already illegal in Highland Park where was Sheriff Idleburg then. The gun is not the problem. It is the person holding the gun. This individual should have never gotten an FOID again where was the state police in their issuance of the same. Instead of passing laws can we please identify the problem and then attempt to Fix the problem
- Red ketcher - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:21 pm:
Believe the Judge who heard the Effingham Case is a rookie - on bench for less than 2 months ?
Could be a tough start ?
- JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:24 pm:
=Calvin Ball=
First, hats off to Rich for invoking anything related to the greatest comic of all time. I guess I never looked up Calvin & Hobbs on wikipedia, I am delighted to know Calvin Ball as a section that is devoted to it.
=The key passage in Bruen=
In your opinion.
Is the AR-15 in common usage? Well, how are we judging that? The US has a population of North of 300,000,000 if 1,000,000 or even 10,000,000 individuals possess the weapon does that equate to common usage?
And the word usage is important as well. WHat does that mean?
There are of lot of AR’s and other assault weapons owned by people in Illinois, but in “common usage” they are not.
=I would push that angle a bit further, but asking to clarify what is meant by “in common use” for “self-defense.”=
WHat is the number to qualify? Because the truth is that using it for self defense in Illinois is minimal and the is being generous. The same is true for using just about any weapon for self defense.
- H-W - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:28 pm:
@ Hemi345
I will ignore the rhetorical debate about guns not being relevant to people being killed with guns. Others may wish to chase that rabbit you are chasing.
But is will ask you to answer your own implicit question. How would you propose we reduce the number of mass shootings and other gun related deaths? How would you “fix the problem?”
- H-W - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:34 pm:
@ JS Mill
I do not disagree with your perspective on the relevance of common usage, or usage for self defense. However, I do believe this court is very likely to return to that “precedent” (ironic, right?).
I would guess the court will suggest that assault-styled weapons are in common use for hunting. I also would guess that this court will say that having a common weapon in your home would allow it to be used for self-defense, and then conclude that because a lot of people hunt with these weapons and have them in their homes, they cannot be made illegal>
I do not accept that logic, but I rarely accept anything Thomas writes or Scalia says. I am just suggesting this court will go down that road to make these weapons a “protected class” of weapons.
- Pundent - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 2:38 pm:
=Instead of passing laws can we please identify the problem and then attempt to Fix the problem=
This argument has been made for many years now. And yet the fix to the problem never seems to materialize. Might have something to do with why 60% of voters are in favor of an assault weapons ban.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:02 pm:
== And yet the fix to the problem never seems to materialize. ==
Doesn’t cost scarce funds to ban weapons.
Costs a lot to set up intervention programs, do pro-active policing, adequate mental health services, etc.
It’s simplistic, but there’s part of your answer.
- Just Me 2 - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:16 pm:
Did anyone else notice that DeVore’s case is almost entirely a process argument, and barely touched on the actual complaints that it violates the 2nd Amendment?
- Papa2008 - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:21 pm:
RNUG for the win. Exactly.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:28 pm:
–Did anyone else notice that DeVore’s case is almost entirely a process argument, and barely touched on the actual complaints that it violates the 2nd Amendment?–
IMHO that’s a feature not a bug. He gets cash to “stand up for your rights” doesn’t mention said rights. If it gets tossed he gets to ask for more cash to appeal. Meanwhile the hard tedious work of mounting a serious challenge is left to SAF, ISRA, etc. and their competent attorneys. If/When those serious attorneys win DeVore will be happy to pretend he was in the trenches and ignore that he was wasting time cashing in.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:31 pm:
–There are of lot of AR’s and other assault weapons owned by people in Illinois, but in “common usage” they are not.–
With all due respect how do you come to that conclusion?
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:46 pm:
Always makes me nervous when the guy defending access to guns has temper issues. In this case against a reporter in public… makes you wonder…
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 3:55 pm:
I was shocked when Mendrick was unopposed last November. He’s been controversial since his first election, yet there was no other choice. Party leaders need to have a candidate in order to beat him.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 4:03 pm:
Not going to worry about this bill anymore. Did an inventory of the gun safe today. Looks like I can be / am already mostly compliant. Just need another small magazine if I want to carry a spare for my compact pistol.
We’ll wait on registration until this shakes out; I still have a bill of sale from the gun shop so regardless of deadline or outcome prior ownership can be proven.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 4:03 pm:
“I LOL’d when Pearson told Simons that the AR15 isn’t a powerful weapon.” Wow.
Starting in the early 1970s, a “proscribed terrorist organization” preferred weapon of choice was the AR15, which they used to kill military, law enforcement, and innocent civilians.
- Shytown - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 4:08 pm:
oh wow. telling Sasha to shut up…not a good idea. Fail. Big fail.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 4:09 pm:
== There are of lot of AR’s and other assault weapons owned by people in Illinois, but in “common usage” they are not. ==
Unless the State or Feds have been keeping transfer records they are not supposed to keep, no one knows for sure. A year from now, if / when the registration process is played out, we might know. It’s been established in other places that registration laws only achieve between 10% - 20% compliance. So whatever number ISP reports next year, you can multiply it by a factor or 5 or 10 to approximate the real number.
- Dave Dahl - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 4:22 pm:
OW - Once I realized Rich was not referring to a person named Calvin Ball …
- Todd - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 5:06 pm:
JS—
The court found 200,000 was enough to be in common use.
But I see you trying to boot strap up the argument that it’s not in common use but the anti-gun side wants to add in more to the test such as actually used in self defense and then go gun by gun to try and establish a new standard for review.
Not gonna buy it and neither will this court
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 5:11 pm:
- Dave Dahl -
Yeah. I can see how that could play. The reference is truly genius.
Hope you’re well, Happy New Year, thanks for all you do.
OW
- Pundent - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 5:16 pm:
=Costs a lot to set up intervention programs, do pro-active policing, adequate mental health services, etc.=
And in those instances where the GOP could have made a positive impact in these areas they held the state hostage. The larger point being is that people are fed up with obstructionists who say that we should be doing something other than focusing on gun control and then sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. Maybe an assault weapons ban isn’t the solution we need. But I’ll take it over the inaction of the ILGOP any day of the week.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 5:24 pm:
Pendent - well said
- low level - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 6:28 pm:
Speaking of Calvin Ball, I’d love to see Todd’s snowmen…
By the way, so little said from the GOP about the Catholic Bishop’s statement. Amazing.
- Todd - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 6:35 pm:
https://www.cbr.com/best-calvin-hobbes-snowman-comics/
This is pretty close we did the shark fins one year in the front yard. And i can think of a few more
- JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 6:46 pm:
@H W- I appreciate your thoughts.
=With all due respect how do you come to that conclusion?=
On a daily basis, how often do you see anyone other than law enforcement with an AR or other assault weapon.
Folks like @Todd are not good with vocabulary, “usage” is a key component of that phrase and it is not synonymous with “ownership”.
I do not know the numbers in terms of how many are out there, and the number of guns is not most relevant since a person can only use one or two at a time. How many individual assault rifle owners are their, and how do they prove usage?
=The court found 200,000 was enough to be in common use.=
I would like to see where that number is in any USSC decision.
=the anti-gun side=
That is not me. I have double digit number of guns. In fact, if the court strikes down the ban I might buy an AR10 or an H&K MR556 to protect myself from the other nuts that worship assault weapons.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 6:50 pm:
=== Maybe an assault weapons ban isn’t the solution we need. ===
No, but it is a part of the solution.
- CJA - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 7:12 pm:
JS,
Well, in the Cetano case, SCOTUS determined 200K stun-guns equated to “in common use.”
- CJA - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 7:20 pm:
JS,
== I would like to see where that number is in any USSC decision ==
Notably, this Court indicated that as few as 200,000 stun guns owned nationwide by law-abiding citizens was enough to show common ownership and receive constitutional protection. Caetano, 577 U.S. at 420 (Alito, J., and Thomas, J., concurring)
- Mason born - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 7:55 pm:
JS
Not sure where you are shooting at. They’re pretty ubiquitous at outdoor ranges. Target practice and hunting would seem to be usage. If you’re argument is someone carrying is the only usage then no long guns would ever qualify.
I’d also think SCOTUS will consider usage on a national basis and not just IL.
What would be your definition of usage?
- JoanP - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 9:11 pm:
@ CJA -
The only mention of that number in Caetano is “see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009), from the concurrence.
The per curiam opinion makes no mention of any particular number. In fact, the only statement related to “in common usage” in that opinion was on the issue of whether that meant *at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment”.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 9:21 pm:
== then go gun by gun to try and establish a new standard for review ==
Did a bit of research …
One of the models they really wanted to ban because of it’s use in the Highland Park shooting is the S&W M&P 15. Like a lot of others, it was specifically listed in the bill.
But if we are using the ‘in common use’ criteria, that particular model is supposedly the most popular brand / model sold because of it’s decent quality at a relatively low price point … something like $800, or $900 equipped with a fairly decent scope. Because of the low price, it makes a solid entry base for those who want to do further upgrades or customization. I know at one point my local gun shop had trouble keeping them in stock; anecdotal but matches up with reported sales data.
So the one model they wanted to specifically target is also the same model that has been in the top 10 best sellers since it’s introduction by S&W in 2006. In 2020 it was #1 on the best sellers list. Ironically, of every firearm listed in the bill, it is the brand / model most likely to pass a ‘common use’ test even if you went by line by line of listed firearms.
- CJA - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 10:21 pm:
@Joan
True, which is why you also have to look at the Bianchi case.