{"id":1810448,"date":"2023-01-19T08:50:09","date_gmt":"2023-01-19T13:50:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1810448"},"modified":"2023-01-19T08:52:34","modified_gmt":"2023-01-19T13:52:34","slug":"challenge-to-illinois-gun-law-tees-up-scotus-to-overturn-assault-weapons-bans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/challenge-to-illinois-gun-law-tees-up-scotus-to-overturn-assault-weapons-bans\/","title":{"rendered":"Challenge to Illinois\u2019 Gun Law Tees up SCOTUS to Overturn \u201cAssault Weapons\u201d Bans"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">26<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fchallenge-to-illinois-gun-law-tees-up-scotus-to-overturn-assault-weapons-bans%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1810448&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47-->\n<div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/15164705881_52fd259677_k.jpg\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" alt=\"image\"   style=\"display:none\"><\/div>\n<p>Illinois\u2019 recently enacted ban on most semi-automatic rifles and so-called \u201chigh-capacity\u201d According to a lawsuit, magazines infringe the Second Amendment. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.saf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/1-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">filed<\/a> Tuesday in a federal District Court. The case is now closed. <em>Harrel v. Raoul<\/em>This is one of the most important challenges for so-called &#8220;First Responders.&#8221; \u201cassault-weapons\u201d Bans in place since the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2022 decision <em>New York State Rifle v. Bruen<\/em> It was made very clear that the right of bear arms is not an absolute right \u201ca second-class right.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s what you need to know about the case and current Second Amendment jurisprudence.<\/p>\n<p>Illinois passed a ban on manufacturing, delivery, sale and purchase of so-called &#8220;so-called&#8221; products on Jan. 10, 2023. \u201cassault weapons,\u201d This includes any semi-automatic rifle as defined by law \u201cwith the capacity to accept a magazine holding more than ten rounds of ammunition,\u201d If the rifle has any of the following features: \u201ca pistol grip or thumbhole stock,\u201d A \u201cfolding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock,\u201d Or, \u201cflash suppressor.\u201d A number of rifles that are specifically prohibited by the Illinois law are also listed in the statute. \u201cassault weapons,\u201d All AK-type rifles and all AR-type rifles are included.<\/p>\n<p>Illinois\u2019 recently enacted statute also makes it a crime to \u201cmanufacture, deliver, sell, purchase,\u201d Oder \u201cpossess\u201d Magazines branded by the state \u201clarge capacity ammunition\u201d devices are referred to as colloquially \u201clarge-capacity magazines.\u201d This statute defines magazines as \u201clarge capacity\u201d If they can hold more than \u201c10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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. \u201cvery soon,\u201d It is important to note that the statute has been in effect since Jan. 10, when the governor signed it.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiffs need to prove that they have a preliminary or temporary restraining order. \u201ca likelihood of success on the merits,\u201d This means that they are likely to prevail on their claim of Illinois law violation of the Second Amendment.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>Return to the Founding<\/h2>\n<p>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. <em>Bruen <\/em>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\u2019s Second Amendment right is whether the government can \u201caffirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court then noted that modern firearm technology is not the same as that used at the founding. <em>Bruen <\/em>directed the lower court when confronted with cases \u201cimplicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes\u201d Follow these steps \u201ca more nuanced approach\u201d And \u201cconduct \u2026 reasoning by analogy\u201d To determine if modern firearm regulations would be \u201cunimaginable at the founding.\u201d The Supreme Court added: \u201cwhether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are \u2018central\u2019 considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Or, in other words, you should be below <em>Bruen<\/em>The government must show that a similar ban\/regulation was constitutional in historical context. The issue is in <em>Bruen <\/em>was New York\u2019s ban on carrying a firearm in public, absent \u201cproper-cause.\u201d The Supreme Court ruled that the proper-cause requirement was not applicable \u201claw-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,\u201d It was therefore invalidated on the basis of history and tradition.<\/p>\n<p>While <em>Bruen<\/em> 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\u2019s decisions in <em>Wilson v. Cook County<\/em> And <em>Friedman v. City of Highland Park <\/em>This was held \u201cassault weapons\u201d 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\u2019 statute and will need only apply the proper standard set forth in <em>Bruen<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The following are the guidelines <em>Bruen<\/em> standard, the district court and later the Seventh Circuit and Supreme Court are likely to find Illinois\u2019 ban on so-called assault weapons unconstitutional because the statute <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2017\/11\/09\/supreme-court-takes-gun-control-case-decision-will-huge\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">bans<\/a> \u201ctypes of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose.\u201d 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>What is it about Magazines?<\/h2>\n<p>It is not clear whether the ban on large-capacity magazines would also be a failure. The plaintiffs\u2019 complaint alleges that the \u201clarge-capacity\u201d The descriptor is a misspelling because magazines that hold more than 10 or fifteen rounds are the prohibited. \u201cnorm.\u201d Similar rulings have been upheld by two federal courts. \u201clarge-capacity\u201d Interdictions <em>Bruen <\/em>standard. One court ruled magazines were not acceptable. \u201carms\u201d 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. \u201ccommonly used for a lawful purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But, it is the right question. <em>Bruen<\/em>, is whether Illinois can point to a historical analog that establishes the state\u2019s 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n<p>However, no matter what Judge McGlynn does, this case seems headed for the United States Supreme Court. <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2017\/11\/27\/supreme-court-guts-second-amendment-refusing-hear-semi-auto-ban-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">sidestepped<\/a> Constitutionality \u201cassault weapons\u201d And \u201clarge-capacity\u201d For years, magazines have been banned. Keep watching.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n Margot Cleveland, The Federalist&#8217;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. <\/p>\n<p>Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Illinois\u2019 recently enacted ban on most semi-automatic rifles and so-called \u201chigh-capacity\u201d 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 &#8220;First Responders.&#8221; \u201cassault-weapons\u201d Bans in place since the Supreme Court&#8217;s 2022 &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1810345,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[547],"tags":[4767,4929,5458,7727,7012,6413,6547,8978,3819,6994,15578,7788],"class_list":["post-1810448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-bongino-report","tag-assault","tag-bans","tag-bongino","tag-challenge","tag-gun","tag-illinois","tag-law","tag-overturn","tag-report","tag-scotus","tag-tees","tag-weapons"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1810448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1810448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1810448\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1810345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1810448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1810448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1810448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}