Challenge to Illinois’ Gun Law Tees up SCOTUS to Overturn “Assault Weapons” Bans

Illinois’ recently enacted ban on most semi-automatic rifles and so-called “high-capacity” According to a lawsuit, magazines infringe the Second Amendment. filed Tuesday in a federal District Court. The case is now closed. Harrel v. RaoulThis is one of the most important challenges for so-called “First Responders.” “assault-weapons” Bans in place since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision New York State Rifle v. Bruen It was made very clear that the right of bear arms is not an absolute right “a second-class right.” 

Here’s what you need to know about the case and current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Illinois passed a ban on manufacturing, delivery, sale and purchase of so-called “so-called” products on Jan. 10, 2023. “assault weapons,” This includes any semi-automatic rifle as defined by law “with the capacity to accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds of ammunition,” If the rifle has any of the following features: “a pistol grip or thumbhole stock,” A “folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock,” Or, “flash suppressor.” A number of rifles that are specifically prohibited by the Illinois law are also listed in the statute. “assault weapons,” All AK-type rifles and all AR-type rifles are included.

Illinois’ recently enacted statute also makes it a crime to “manufacture, deliver, sell, purchase,” Oder “possess” Magazines branded by the state “large capacity ammunition” devices are referred to as colloquially “large-capacity magazines.” This statute defines magazines as “large capacity” If they can hold more than “10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns.” 

A group of individuals, gun companies, and private organisations, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed suit against the Illinois attorney General and several state attorneys and law enforcement agents on Tuesday. They claimed that the statute violates The Second Amendment. The case was assigned on Wednesday to Stephen P. McGlynn, an appointee of Donald Trump.

David G. Sigale is the lead attorney representing plaintiffs. He told The Federalist that he plans to apply for a temporary injunction or restraining order. “very soon,” It is important to note that the statute has been in effect since Jan. 10, when the governor signed it. 

Plaintiffs need to prove that they have a preliminary or temporary restraining order. “a likelihood of success on the merits,” This means that they are likely to prevail on their claim of Illinois law violation of the Second Amendment. 

Return to the Founding

While several federal appellate court courts have ruled that similar bans against so-called assault weapons violate the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in June 2022. Bruen The Supreme Court ruled that the appellate courts were using an incorrect legal standard in determining whether a challenged statute is in violation of the Second Amendment. 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.” 

The Supreme Court then noted that modern firearm technology is not the same as that used at the founding. Bruen directed the lower court when confronted with cases “implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes” Follow these steps “a more nuanced approach” And “conduct … reasoning by analogy” To determine if modern firearm regulations would be “unimaginable at the founding.” The Supreme Court added: “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.”

Or, in other words, you should be below BruenThe government must show that a similar ban/regulation was constitutional in historical context. The issue is in Bruen was New York’s ban on carrying a firearm in public, absent “proper-cause.” The Supreme Court ruled that the proper-cause requirement was not applicable “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” It was therefore invalidated on the basis of history and tradition.

While Bruen The Supreme Court, however, did not address constitutionality of large-capacity magazine and assault weapons bans. It held that the lower courts had used the wrong legal standard to determine the constitutionality. This meant that precedents upholding such bans were invalidated. Thus, the Seventh Circuit’s decisions in Wilson v. Cook County And Friedman v. City of Highland Park This was held “assault weapons” Bans are not constitutional. This is bad law. Accordingly, Judge McGlynn will be writing on a clean slate when he addresses the constitutionality of Illinois’ statute and will need only apply the proper standard set forth in Bruen.

The following are the guidelines Bruen standard, the district court and later the Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court are likely to find Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons unconstitutional because the statute bans “types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose.” The Supreme Court has previously stated that the historical question to be answered by courts when deciding whether firearms are subject to the Second Amendment is the one they will have to address. 

What is it about Magazines?

It is not clear whether the ban on large-capacity magazines would also be a failure. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the “large-capacity” The descriptor is a misspelling because magazines that hold more than 10 or fifteen rounds are the prohibited. “norm.” Similar rulings have been upheld by two federal courts. “large-capacity” Interdictions Bruen standard. One court ruled magazines were not acceptable. “arms” The Second Amendment. Second court ruled that mass murderers may fire more than 10 shots from semi-automatic rifles but self-defense gun owners rarely fire more than 10. Such magazines are not considered arms. “commonly used for a lawful purpose.”

But, it is the right question. Bruen, is whether Illinois can point to a historical analog that establishes the state’s right to limit the possession and use of magazines that hold more than 10 or 15 rounds. The state will have an opportunity to do so when it responds to the plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for a temporary restraining order or an injunction. You can also expect a lot of amicus briefs, or court friends, to present arguments supporting or against the Illinois ban.

However, no matter what Judge McGlynn does, this case seems headed for the United States Supreme Court. sidestepped Constitutionality “assault weapons” And “large-capacity” For years, magazines have been banned. Keep watching.

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist’s senior law correspondent, is Margot. She has also contributed to National Review Online and Washington Examiner. Aleteia and Townhall.com. Her work has been published in USA Today and Wall Street Journal.

Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. Later, she served as a permanent law clerk on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for almost 25 years. Cleveland was a former full-time university professor and now teaches adjunctively.

Cleveland, a stay-at home mom to a boy with cystic fibrosis and a special-needs child, writes often about cultural issues. Cleveland can be found on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland These views are hers in private.