Federal Judge Bans Enforcement of Illinois ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

A federal judge in Illinois recently issued a permanent injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn wrote that the Illinois Communities Protection Act (PICA) “is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and should be banned.” Barnett / Raoulcompounding several challenges to the law on Friday. “The government cannot deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as an instrument of crime.”

McGlynn granted the injunction 30 days to allow an appeal, which appears likely to be successful. last year Bevis v. City of Naperville7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals discharged interim injunction vs. PICA, published by McGlynn in April 2023. The 7th Circuit concluded that the state was likely to prevail in defending the law.

168 pages of opinion McGlynn’s statement, issued after a court hearing Friday, seeks to reconcile the 7th Circuit’s reasoning based on the distinction between “military” weapons and “weapons protected by the Second Amendment” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. That’s a tall order. But the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which represented plaintiffs in one of the PICA cases, argues He stated that the evidence presented at the hearing showed that “PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test” and that this “contradicts the binding precedents of the Supreme Court.”

Illinois legislators enacted PICA in January 2023, six months after a gunman used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle. kill seven people At the Independence Day parade in Highland Park. Among other things, the law prohibitions Any semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has one or more of the six listed features, as well as a long list of specific rifle models: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a protruding grip, a collapsible or adjustable stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a barrel cover. PICA also bans “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined to include rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and handgun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Illinois House Speaker Chris Welch (D–Weschester) in question the law targeted “weapons of war”. This statement suggested what Welch was talking about. selective fire rifles Like the weapons carried by US soldiers that can fire automatically.

This was absolutely not true. This type of rifles tightly regulated According to federal law, banned Sales of newly produced machine guns to civilians since 1986. PICA is not interested in machine guns; Pertains to semi-automatic firearms that fire one round with each pull of the trigger.

Illinois Senate President Don Harmon (D–Oak Park) in question PICA is “beginning to push back against weapons whose sole purpose is to eviscerate other people.” This statement was confusing, as firearms are inanimate objects that cannot establish intent, and only a small percentage of weapons banned by PICA are used to commit crimes. But it reflected difficulty That’s what lawmakers face when they try to ban guns that supposedly serve no purpose other than mass murder.

In any case, such statements have no constitutional significance. 2008 is the turning point District of Columbia v. HellerThe Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right to possess a handgun for self-defense, even though such firearms are available. used in crimes (to contain mass shootings) much more often than rifles, which Illinois bans.

“We recognize the problem of gun violence in this country and take seriously the concerns expressed by many.” friend “There are those who believe that banning handgun possession is a solution,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. rights necessarily take certain policy choices off the table. “These include an absolute ban on guns kept and used for self-defense at home.”

Start date: hellerhowever, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between “common use” weapons used for “lawful purposes such as self-defense,” which fall under the Second Amendment, and “dangerous and unusual weapons,” which do not. McGlynn’s opinion seeks to explain this distinction without contradicting what the 7th Circuit has said on the matter.

Inside hellerThe Court stated that the Second Amendment “covers all means that constitute prima facie tolerable weapons, even those that did not exist at the time of founding.” McGlynn defines “bearable” weapons as weapons “that a person carries for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in the event of conflict with another person.”

What makes a gun “dangerous”? The answer is not obvious, since all weapons can be used to injure or kill people. After much consideration, McGlynn defines “dangerous” weapons as “weapons that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to incapacitate specific, identified attackers.” He thinks machine guns fall into this category because soldiers use them to “suppress fire” rather than targeting a specific threat. McGlynn emphasizes that “what makes him dangerous is not his rate of fire, but his arm and his lack of ability to discriminate control projectiles thrown.”

What about “unusual”? Illinois argued that a gun could be “unusual” even if it was widely owned, as guns under PICA are arguably not. Without reference to this question, McGlynn defines an “unconventional” weapon as “an arm that employs an unconventional method to incapacitate an opponent during the encounter or uses a caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous, or radioactive neutralizing agent.” It adds that the “unusual” category “shall also include weapons not designed for successful self-defense to incapacitate an opponent, but rather used primarily to inflict cruel, cruel or inhumane suffering on a person.”

What does it mean for a weapon to be “in common use”? The 7th Circuit said numbers alone are not decisive: Although millions of Americans own “assault weapons,” that fact alone does not indicate that those firearms are “in common use.” Taking a slightly different approach, McGlynn says the “common use” category presumably includes “any rifle, shotgun, or handgun that is capable of semi-automatic fire and that can be purchased, possessed, and used by law-abiding citizens.” Self-defense unless otherwise ‘dangerous or unusual.'” He adds that this “common use” category also includes “essential features (such as magazines) and non-essential features (such as magazines) that enhance operability, accuracy, or security.” various annexes prohibited by PICA).”

McGlynn also considers the military/non-military distinction drawn by the 7th Circuit. He emphasizes that the rifles covered by the Illinois ban are not actually used by the military and are not capable of automatic fire. He also notes that the 7th Circuit recognizes the “dual-use” category of weapons used by both civilians and soldiers, with handguns being a prime example. Even though the soldiers carried pistols, the Supreme Court heller It ruled that, although described as a “weapon of self-defense,” they qualified as a “weapon” under the Second Amendment.

Having determined that rifles banned in Illinois are indeed “guns,” McGlynn considers whether PICA passes the constitutional test set by the Supreme Court in a 2022 case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association / Bruen: Is the law “consistent with this nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation”? McGlynn concludes that the historical analogs cited by Illinois are not “relevantly similar” to PICA.

While making this decision, the Supreme Court said: BruenJudges must consider both the “why” (the justification for a law) and the “how” (the nature of the restrictions it governs). McGlynn says PICA fails because of the second prong. He noted that “only 4% of the laws mentioned (9 out of 225) completely He writes that the government “relies heavily and predominantly on concealed carry laws, laws restricting the discharge of firearms, and laws prohibiting brandishing or causing terrorism.”

“Although these laws may answer the question ‘why?’ Bruen because they
“They clearly aim to prevent death or injury from firearms,” ​​McGlynn says, “but they can’t answer the ‘how’ question.” Moreover, the Government cannot clearly demonstrate that PICA follows any historical tradition that includes blanket prohibitions on the sale, transfer and possession of large numbers of firearms.”

McGlynn’s injunction includes both a ban on “assault weapons” and a registration requirement for previously owned guns. It also includes a ban on “large capacity” magazines, although McGlynn says “belt-fed ammunition” because they “have no lawful self-defense purpose” could be banned without violating the Second Amendment. While many of the rifle features banned by PICA are constitutionally protected, he says that doesn’t apply to grenade launchers because “no one uses them for self-defense.”

McGlynn likewise concludes that PICA’s ban on .50-caliber rifles is constitutional. “The court is not convinced that any law-abiding citizen would keep a .50-caliber sniper rifle in his home for self-defense,” he writes. “The government’s testimony indicates that this weapon is large, bulky, has significant recoil, and is of limited use in close-range situations. It is clear that such a weapon is unsuitable for self-defense and is properly prohibited for civilian use by PICA. The same is true.” for the ammunition it fired.”

McGlynn said neither side has presented enough evidence to consider the constitutionality of PICA’s ban on devices that increase the rate of fire of a rifle. “No evidence has been presented to show that bump stocks, dual triggers, or similar devices result in the operator being unable to control the weapon to which they are attached” (which would make them “dangerous” under McGlynn’s definition), he writes. “Unlike the language in PICA banning certain semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, as well as magazines and attachments, the language regarding devices that increase the rate of fire is vague….Lacking data or argument regarding their prevalence or use, this Court finds that such devices “We cannot determine whether it is in common use for self-defense.”

The 7th Circuit’s previous decisions suggest it would not be receptive to McGlynn’s analysis. But as the FPC points out, challenge to Maryland “assault weapon” ban It gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to decide whether such laws are constitutional. “We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon find solutions to such bans.” Snope vs. Brown “The case in Maryland is pending the court’s decision on our petition for certiorari.” says FPC President Brandon Combs. “Gun owners in the United States should be confident that final victory on these issues is likely to come soon.”

Post Federal Judge Bans Enforcement of Illinois ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban appeared for the first time reason.com.