In layman’s terms: A federal district court judge overturned the Illinois “assault weapon” and magazine ban.
Today, District Court Judge for the Southern District of Illinois, Stephen P. McGlynn overturned an Illinois ban on semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, in a massive victory for Second Amendment rights and common sense.
The Firearms Policy Coalition case of Harrel v. Raoul challenged the unconstitutional “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA), which unlawfully bans commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines. As we previously reported, the case was consolidated by the 7th Circuit Appeals Court along with a number of other cases on related subjects.
“We are gratified that the Court properly found that these bans violate the Constitutionally protected rights of Illinois residents and visitors. As we clearly showed at trial, PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test that conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in an email statement. “We will continue to fight forward until we eliminate every unconstitutional ban like this throughout the country. Further, we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon address bans like these in our Snope v. Brown case out of Maryland, which is pending the Court’s decision on our petition for certiorari. Gun owners across the United States should be confident that the ultimate victory on these issues is coming, likely soon.”
Judge McGlynn’s 168-page decision starts with the unlikely question:
Why are there small lifeboats on gigantic steel ocean liners?
Judge McGlynn has ruled to support the Second Amendment in other high profile cases and answers this question with some common sense perspective:
In life, we face many perils…. And who comes to our aid in times of peril? Sometimes, it is the police or first responders; other times it is healthcare professionals; and sometimes it is family, friends, or neighbors. Sometimes, it is no one.
He also added some insightful commentary acknowledging that the very subject of the AR-15 itself brings many different reactions, stating:
The AR-15 is the Rorschach test of America’s gun debate. In listening to the political debate and in reading various judicial interpretations of what the AR-15 represents, it is obvious that many are seeing very different creatures.
The Bruen decision is mentioned 97 times in Judge McGlynn’s decision, underscoring the critical importance of that decision in jurisprudence surrounding the Second Amendment. In summary he found that:
Most importantly, considering all of the evidence presented, the Court holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
He added the straight-forward assertion that, “The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.”
“Outstanding post! The research quality and clarity blew me away. The way you’ve structured each point shows your deep understanding of the topic. I’ve learned so much from your expert insights.”
What I don’t understand is why a ruling in the favor of citizens is ALWAYS coupled with an allowance of time for the state to appeal. Yet, the state NEVER incorporates the same!