A Must-Read Court Decision
By Mark Chesnut. Nov 17, 2024
Article Source
An Illinois District Court struck down portions of the Illinois law prohibiting the ownership of so-called "assault weapons" and "large-capacity" magazines.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in the NRA-supported case Barnett v. Raoul, found on November 8 that the two provisions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and issued an order barring the state from enforcing the bans. The court then stayed the ruling for 30 days in anticipation of an appeal by the state.
In the lengthy court opinion, District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn, a Donald Trump appointee, explained how he followed the process set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen as the basis for the ruling.
"Sadly, there are those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens' individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class," the opinion stated. "Seeking ancient laws that may partner well with a present-day infringement on a right proclaimed in the Bill of Rights without reading it in conjunction with the aforementioned history is nonsense. The oft-quoted phrase that 'no right is absolute' does not mean that fundamental rights precariously subsist subject to the whims, caprice, or appetite of government officials or judges."
In the opinion, Judge McGlynn went into a lengthy discussion of "common," "dangerous" and "unusual" arms based on Supreme Court precedent.
The district court defined a "dangerous" arm as one "that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors," and an "unusual" arm as "an arm deploying an atypical method to neutralize an opponent in confrontation or that deploys a neutralizing agent that is caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous or radioactive." It further defined a "common" arm as "any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise 'dangerous and unusual.'"
Judge McGlynn also stated in the opinion: "What is particularly disturbing is that the prohibition of weapons that are commonly owned and used by citizens are now banned, depriving citizens of a principal means to defend themselves and their property in situations where a handgun or shotgun alone would not be the citizen's preferred arm. Therefore, the Court must take action as justice demands," said the opinion. "PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined."
The court also determined that the state's contention that a ruling in the case should apply only to the plaintiffs didn't have merit.
"While the Plaintiffs are vague about their requested remedy, the Government insists that this Court is limited to enjoining the enforcement of PICA against the specific named Plaintiffs," the opinion stated. "Not so. In Ezell, the Seventh Circuit was clear that, if a statute is found to be facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, that it is unconstitutional in all applications."
In the end, Judge McGlynn concluded that the two provisions of the law in question violate protections found within the U.S. Bill of Rights and cannot stand.
"[C]onsidering all of the evidence presented, the Court holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment," the opinion stated. "As the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines."
Of course, state officials, including anti-gun Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), were not pleased with the ruling.
"The Protect Illinois Communities Act was the result of hundreds of hours of deliberation between legal experts, legislators, and advocates, and it makes Illinois a safer place for everyone," Pritzker said in a statement. "Despite those who value weapons of war more than public safety, this law was enacted to and has protected Illinoisans from the constant fear of being gunned down in places where they ought to feel secure."
The state filed a notice of appeal on the same day the ruling was announced, and state officials hope the appeals court will extend the stay until the outcome of the appeal.
