Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Afternoon roundup
Next Post: Pritzker administration tries to push back on Wirepoints migration report
Posted in:
* I’m assuming this will be immediately appealed since ten days ago the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals denied an injunction pending appeal of a case that went the opposite way up north. From Southern District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn…
(C)an [the Illinois Protect Illinois Communities Act] be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is “likely no.” The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted. […]
Assuming arguendo that there is no presumption of harm for an alleged violation of the Second Amendment, Plaintiffs still satisfy this element. For example, Barnett and Norman are no longer able to purchase any firearm, attachment, device, magazine, or other item banned by PICA, while Hoods and Pro Gun are now prohibited from selling said any item banned by PICA. These harms are irreparable and in direct violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense. There is no question that the right to armed self-defense is limited by PICA, and in some cases, may be prohibited altogether. It is true that not all items are banned under PICA; however, if a lawful citizen only possesses items that are banned under PICA, he or she would have to purchase a non-banned firearm in order to legally defend oneself under the Second Amendment. […]
Although Defendants challenged the veracity of Plaintiffs’ evidence, they were unable to produce evidence showing that modern sporting rifles are both dangerous and unusual. Consequently, Defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the “arms” banned by PICA are “dangerous and unusual” and thus not protected by the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2128 (emphasis added). […]
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. They have shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11), (14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court can address the merits.
The Court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions. Again, the Court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the cases. Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence. There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously. Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes.
Stay tuned for react.
…Adding… Speaking of the Bevis case…
A Naperville gun shop owner is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block Illinois’ assault weapon ban while he fights the law in federal court.
Robert Bevis is seeking an emergency junction, one week after a federal appeals court in Chicago turned down his request.
“This is an exceedingly simple case,” Bevis argues in his appeal, filed on Wednesday. “The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home.”
…Adding… Press release…
State Rep. Bob Morgan (D-Deerfield), the chief sponsor of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (“HB5471”), responded to the decision from U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois in East St. Louis, after McGlynn issued an injunction against the Illinois assault weapons ban that was signed into law on January 10, 2023. The decision comes after U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins, and U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall, both out of the Northern District of Illinois, separately rejected similar requests for an injunction.
“This news is disappointing, but we remain encouraged as we’ve already had two federal judges in Illinois refuse to block the law,” said Rep. Morgan. “Since its enactment, this law has already prevented the sales of thousands of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in Illinois, making Illinois communities safer for families. This is necessary and life-saving legislation, and we feel confident we will ultimately prevail in a higher court.”
This conflict in rulings will now move the issue to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. This injunction does not impact the prohibition on rapid-fire devices, the interstate firearm trafficking strike force, or extension of the duration of a firearm restraining order established under HB5471.
Rep. Morgan serves as Chair of the Illinois House Firearm Safety Reform Working Group. He has seen firsthand the devastating effects that gun violence can have on a community. Highland Park, IL is a part of his 58th District, and he was present at the tragic Fourth of July mass shooting in 2022 during which 83 rounds were fired in less than 60 seconds, killing seven and injuring 48 people.
* G-PAC…
Today, the Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC) released the following statement from John Schmidt, a former U.S. Associate Attorney General and member of the Executive Board of G-PAC, in response to Southern District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn’s decision to enjoin the state from enforcing the Illinois’ assault weapons ban.
“Given comments he made from the bench at the hearing in East St. Louis on April 12, Judge McGlynn’s decision to rule against the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines is not surprising. But it is still disappointing. It is directly contrary to the prior decisions of two Chicago federal judges, Judge Virginia Kendall and Judge Lindsay Jenkins, both of whom found the new statute “constitutionally sound” and declined relief. We believe Judges Kendall and Judge Jenkins are right, and Judge McGlynn is wrong.
“Judge Kendall’s decision is already on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and that Court also declined to grant any immediate relief. We have confidence that the Attorney General representing the State of Illinois will take all possible actions to try to assure that the statute continues to remain in effect while litigation proceeds.”
*** UPDATE *** Attorney General Raoul has filed a motion with the Southern District to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal…
The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order is inconsistent with two prior rulings from two different judges in the Northern District of Illinois rejecting requests to preliminarily enjoin the Act on materially indistinguishable Second Amendment claims. See Bevis v. Naperville, No. 22- cv-4775, Dkt. 63, 2023 WL 2077392 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2023); Herrera v. Raoul, No. 23-cv-532, Dkt. 75, 2023 WL 3074799 (N.D. Ill. April 26, 2023). The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order neither mentions nor analyzes why those two rulings on the same Act and the same type of Second Amendment claims were erroneous. They were not. The Seventh Circuit has also had the opportunity to enjoin the Act while considering the Bevis appeal, and it denied that request on April 18, 2023. Bevis v. Naperville, No. 23-1353, Dkt. 51 (7th Cir.) (denying motion for injunction pending appeal).
In order to avoid inconsistency and confusion—particularly given that refusing to stay the Preliminary Injunction Order would have the practical effect of overriding the Seventh Circuit’s contrary order in Bevis—this Court should stay its Preliminary Injunction Order while the Seventh Circuit considers the merits of the State Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. Furthermore, the Court should stay its Preliminary Injunction Order because: the Act does not violate the Second Amendment and Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims will ultimately fail on the merits; enjoining the Act inflicts irreparable harm on the public by allowing the weapons preferred by mass murderers to continue to proliferate; and the public interest favors allowing the Act’s restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity magazines to remain in effect.
I doubt it’ll work, but there you go.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:15 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Afternoon roundup
Next Post: Pritzker administration tries to push back on Wirepoints migration report
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It is unsurprising that a judge who was also an NRA member at the time of his appointment (see his Senate questionnaire) ruled this way and ended his decision with their talking points. I am confident that this will sadly be the norm in efforts to end gun violence.
Comment by Nuke The Whales Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:30 pm
Ban the books and pass the guns.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:35 pm
“Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA … statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court can address the merits.”
Will be a very busy weekend at all local gun shops/ranges.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:35 pm
I was born a long darn time ago and was proudly a Republican my whole life. Worked precincts and liked my party. But I was a “country club” Republican and now I am a RHINO but I guess what I am not is a true Republican and that suits me fine. I do not get fascination with uncontrolled guns and the fascination with
minding women’s business and personal choices. The party has lost me and judging from the collar counties I am not alone
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:40 pm
The 7th Circuit Naperville case that was decided in favor of the State is on a quick path to SCOTUS
From Sun-Times:
“A Naperville gun shop owner is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block Illinois’ assault weapon ban while he fights the law in federal court. Robert Bevis is seeking an emergency junction, one week after a federal appeals court in Chicago turned down his request.”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:50 pm
==Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant==
I think we can see who is arrogant.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:54 pm
The Saddest person right now has to be Tom DeVore. No more freebie retainers.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:55 pm
What part of a “well regulated militia” is unclear?
Comment by Jerry Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:55 pm
==What part of a “well regulated militia” is unclear?==
Most of it based on the differing opinions being delivered this week.
Comment by Papa2008 Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 2:59 pm
=What part of a “well regulated militia” is unclear?=
They skip that part because it IS so clear.
This decision seems at odds with the Appeals Court decision.
I guess they are afraid of drag queens but not gun wielding nuts.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:02 pm
–he or she would have to purchase a non-banned firearm in order to legally defend oneself under the Second Amendment.–
Being prohibited from buying or selling these firearms is a violation of the 2nd amendment. At the same time, buying a weapon that is non-banned for self-defense is also a violation of the 2nd amendment.
–Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. They have shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law–
The judge stated legally buying a non-banned firearm for self-defense was the remedy. Buying a firearm can not be both allowed and not allowed as a remedy at the same time, as part of the same decision.
Now, lets go back to the post yesterday about the IL supreme court judge staying up at night worried about how their rulings and choice of words will have unintended consequences.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:04 pm
Calling these “modern sporting rifles” turns my stomach.
Comment by walker Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:08 pm
Calling these “modern sporting rifles” turns my stomach.
Comment by walker Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:08 pm
– At the same time, buying a weapon that is non-banned for self-defense is also a violation of the 2nd amendment –
No. Being *forced* to buy another weapon is the violation.
Try harder.
Comment by JB13 Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:17 pm
“modern sporting rifles”
For good or bad that is the industry standard language. The judge likely was trying to be exact as the term “assault rife” can be ambiguous.
https://www.nssf.org/msr/
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:22 pm
I just don’t understand how machine guns can be so highly regulated that it makes them almost impossible to own and you can’t do that legally with assault weapons. Or that the reading of Heller does not allow for regulation. it’s not a free for all re Heller. get more creative. create an ownership path like for machine guns.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:23 pm
–Being *forced* to buy another weapon is the violation.–
I read the briefings. At no point was the personal firearms inventory of the plaintiffs provided. Making a claim they would be forced to do anything, is conclusory and not based on any evidence submitted to the court.
You try again.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:32 pm
=*forced*=
I think YOU need to try harder. No one is forced to buy anything.
=For good or bad that is the industry standard language.=
The tobacco industry used to use language that said cigarettes were healthy.
Look, you can say and believe whatever you want. I am not and never have been anti gun, but every other part of the constitution has limitations. The National Firearms Act of 1934 established limitations on weapons. The obsession with assault rifles is a relatively new phenomena and the court danced around all kinds of history to justify letting people have an AR.
Final thought- no other developed western nation has even remotely the number of gun related killings and violence as the US. NOt even close. In most European countries gun violence is very rare. People need to smarten up.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:33 pm
=== Calling these “modern sporting rifles” turns my stomach. ===
The game be hunted by these “sports rifles” walk around on two legs.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:41 pm
Amalia
With respect the difference between Automatic weapons (Machine Guns) and modern sporting rifles (MSR’s) is the common use test. Even when Automatic Weapons were banned they weren’t in common use, you could buy them but they weren’t very practical or popularly used. MSR’s on the contrary are in common use for lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, hone protection, etc. That makes them fall into that common use standard. In Caetano the cort said 200k stun guns were “common use” 24 mil is going to fit that number.
It’s why I don’t think anyone has challenged the .50 cal ban. Those aren’t in common use and while as far as I know not one has been used in a crime they are potentially very dangerous. Those there is a legitimate argument for them being dangerous and unusual. I personally wouldn’t ban them but that’s largely because a $8k rifle that costs $5 a shot and is almost 6ft long isn’t going to be a real risk to soceity.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 3:42 pm
Does this mean open season for gun dealers to sell everything that was banned by the recent law changes or did it only overturn part of those changes?
Comment by allluck Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 4:07 pm
“The obsession with assault rifles is a relatively new phenomena and the court danced around all kinds of history to justify letting people have an AR.Final thought- no other developed western nation has even remotely the number of gun related killings”
Of course, gun-related killings are always regrettable - but getting to this post and the Illinois ban. Federal data points to handguns being used in the majority of killings - and so-called assault rifles being used in only 3 %.
From PEW:
Which types of firearms are most commonly used in gun murders in the U.S.?
In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 4:08 pm
===Of course, gun-related killings are always regrettable===
Should the survivors and families of the dead merely think their loved ones’ death as… lemme get this right…
“regrettable”
You worship guns over people if the loss of life is … “regrettable”
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your callousness, openly given.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 4:11 pm
@Mason born, thank you. but “common use” could be challenged. and machine guns were terribly common before regulation. .50 cals have been used Violence Policy Center….despite how I loathe Josh and Kristen….has a list of events involving .50 cal
Comment by Amalia Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 4:15 pm
Amalia
It’s a hard sell to say that MSR’s aren’t in common use. It isn’t wrong to say there are more of them then f150’s. Again with respect.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 4:25 pm
I told you so ….
Comment by Todd Friday, Apr 28, 23 @ 4:28 pm