Judge Appointed by Trump Deals a Major Blow to Gun Reform

A federal judge overturned an Illinois assault weapons ban on Friday, arguing that the law passed in response to the 2022 mass shootings at a parade in Highland Park violated the Second Amendment in its entirety.

The 168-page ruling by Donald Trump appointee Stephen McGlynn deals a sharp blow to reformers and marks the latest major court decision to expand gun rights after the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court spent two years sweepingly reinterpreting the Second Amendment . before.

Decision Increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually step in On whether states can restrict the sale of semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 without violating the Constitution.

In his opinion, McGlynn wrote, “While the Court sympathizes with those who have lost loved ones to gun violence, such tragedies are no excuse for restricting the rights guaranteed to the people of Illinois by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.” he wrote.

The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) restricted the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, often referred to as “assault weapons,” as well as large-capacity magazines, after a 21-year-old gunman killed seven people and injured 48 others. 4th of July parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. Many blue states, including California, New York and Maryland, have enacted similar laws that have passed constitutional review.

But one A series of Supreme Court decisions since 2008 It has expanded Second Amendment protections beyond the “well regulated” militia in the text of the Constitution to include individuals seeking to defend themselves, and now requires states to demonstrate that any restrictions imposed in the name of public safety are consistent with a historic tradition of firearm regulation dating back to some date. The period between the signing of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the end of the Civil War in 1865.

McGlynn’s decision found that guns covered by Illinois law were purchased for lawful and protected purposes, such as self-defense, and therefore fell under the protection of the Second Amendment. Although the state of Illinois has argued that rifles like the AR-15 make poor self-defense choices compared to handguns, McGlynn determined that they have many of the same qualities as a light-kick gun, including the ease of shooting and the ability to easily mount optics and a pistol. grips – have become ideal for the purpose, especially for smaller or less strong people.

“Every second counts in a self-defense scenario, and this Court will not indict individuals who lack the strength to choose weapons that will enable them to more vigilantly defend themselves and their families,” McGlynn wrote.

The resolution discusses numerous self-defense scenarios the modern American may face; for example, when multiple attackers invade the home of the elderly or patients who need to defend children.

McGlynn cites the story of David and Goliath to point out that some people may need to fire a rifle from a distance to incapacitate an attacker.

“David chose a lever that allowed him to fire bullets from a safe distance to apply lethal force to his opponent before he could get close enough to kill the giant David with his sword,” McGlynn wrote.

The judge also noted that in a movie, Indiana Jones shot a large man with a gun because he couldn’t reach him with his sword.

“Given the above discussion, it is clear that the individual’s choice of weapon is a critical aspect of the concept of self-defense,” McGlynn wrote after his analysis of Indiana Jones.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups opposing the Illinois law, also applauded the decision.

“We are pleased that the court found that these bans violate the constitutionally protected rights of Illinois residents and visitors,” FPC Chairman Brandon McCombs said in a statement. “We will continue our fight until we eliminate all such unconstitutional bans across the country.”

Opponents planned to appeal the case.

“These weapons and war accessories have absolutely no place on our streets or in the hands of civilians,” Bill Taylor, associate director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, wrote in a statement. “Laws banning these are not only constitutional, they are effective and save lives. “We look forward to supporting Illinois in appealing this extreme and unfounded decision to the Seventh Circuit.”

The case could have major consequences.

Groups in favor of expanding gun rights have repeatedly opposed bans on assault weapons, without success. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote that they wanted to examine the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to access guns such as the AR-15 and AK-47.

But most legal observers agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up such a case unless two separate federal appeals courts reach opposing conclusions.

That hasn’t happened yet because assault weapons bans have mostly been enacted by states in more liberal environments that are more likely to support such laws. States in more conservative environments are less likely to ban assault weapons in the first place.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Illinois, falls somewhere in the middle of the liberal-conservative spectrum.