A judge appointed by President Trump last week issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of Illinois' damning assault weapons possession and registration system, which went into effect in January 2023. The pretext for the ban was the Highland Park parade shooting on July 4, 2022. Its real purpose was to permanently ban Illinois from enforcing its abhorrent assault weapons ownership and registration system. The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, also known as Bruen.
This decision fundamentally changed the legal landscape by requiring states such as Illinois to justify violations of the Second Amendment with historical analogies. Several lawsuits were soon filed challenging the plan, ironically titled the Illinois Community Protection Act (PICA). In March 2023, Judge Stephen McGlynn, who was appointed to his current position by then-President Donald Trump in September 2020 as a district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, announced the plan in Barnett v. Raul. was ruled unconstitutional.
And for several days, Illinoisans were free to own and possess the so-called “assault” weapons targeted in the scheme. However, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed McGlynn's decision, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.
A week-long trial on the matter began in September, following instructions from the High Court, resulting in McGlynn's 168-page judgment.
AR-15: “Rorschach Test”
McGlynn wrote:
The AR-15 is the Rorschach test of America's gun debate. Listening to the political debate and reading the various judicial interpretations of what the AR-15 represents, it's clear that many people see very different creatures.
Many people see one, but not the other. Do they see a dragon to be slain, or a horse pulling a chariot? Different perspectives are often defined by who imagines the person using the weapon. Either a threatening criminal or a law-abiding citizen caught up in a dangerous confrontation.
He concluded that rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution trump gun control laws, calling them “a hindrance.”
Of particular concern is the prohibition of weapons commonly owned and used by the public, and in a situation where handguns and shotguns are not the only weapons of choice for the public, the primary means of protecting oneself and one's property from the public. It is to take away the means.
“The court must therefore act as justice demands,” he wrote. PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be banned. The government must not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense. ”
His ruling covers not only the ban on “assault” weapons, but also the registration system contained in the law.
This ruling contrasts with an opinion handed down by a judge appointed by President Clinton, who joined in ruling that PICA was constitutional. As explained by Friday's The Reload, the opinion is that “semi-automatic AR-15s and their standard magazines are 'indistinguishable' from their fully automatic counterparts, and therefore, under the Second Amendment. “It is not a weapon.”
Clinton Justice Diane Wood wrote the following opinion:
It is unlikely that the AR-15 is substantially different from the M16…and therefore could be regulated or banned. Since the AR-15 is indistinguishable from its machine gun (M16), it could be treated the same without violating the Second Amendment.
consequential decision
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has already asked the attorney general to appeal McGlynn's decision to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is waiting for him there.
Thomas said the Seventh Circuit's decision in favor of PICA was “contrived” and “outside both the text and history.” The Seventh Circuit's application of that definition is itself nonsensical. ”
He added:
It is difficult to understand how the Seventh Circuit concluded that the most widely owned semi-automatic rifle is not a “weapon” protected by the Second Amendment.
(I) If the Seventh Circuit ultimately upholds Illinois' ban on America's most common civilian rifle, we could review that decision once the case reaches final judgment. , you should. Courts should not allow “the Seventh Circuit to downgrade the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”
Now that Mr. McGlynn has delivered the extensive, thorough, and persuasive “final judgment” sought by the Supreme Court, the high court will likely readily and willingly entertain an appeal from Illinois. If this appeal is granted, the Supreme Court will have a final and definitive opinion on the question of whether commonly owned and popular AR-15-type semiautomatic rifles are considered “weapons” under the Second Amendment. It becomes possible to make a judgment.
If President Trump's victory in last Tuesday's election means anything, it is because the Second Amendment has been reduced to a mere suggestion (or imposed) rather than a God-given right to the people. As an anchor that protects the Constitution, it means that it will continue to be vindicated.
Related articles:
Supreme Court rejects appeal of Illinois assault weapons ban
