* Capitol News Illinois earlier this month…
Gun rights advocates once again are asking a federal appeals court in Chicago to overturn Illinois’ ban on assault-style firearms and large-capacity magazines in a case that may be destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
In briefs filed Friday with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys representing plaintiffs challenging the law urged the court to uphold the decision of a lower court judge in East St. Louis who said the law violates the Second Amendment because it bans weapons that are commonly used for lawful purposes like self-defense.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office is appealing that decision, arguing that the weapons banned under the law such as the AK-47, AR-15 and other similar firearms are primarily military in nature and therefore are not protected by the Second Amendment.
The state has until June 27 to file a response to the gun industry’s brief. The court is then expected to set a date for oral arguments, possibly later this year.
* Assistant United States Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division…
* Breitbart provides some excerpts from the DOJ’s brief…
The amicus brief’s introduction points to Bruen (2022) and says in part:
Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other” constitutional rights. …[Bruen] (2022).
Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called “assault weapons” ban. In doing so, Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. …[Heller] (2008).
The Civil Rights Division’s brief centers on two issues:
1. Whether the Act violates the Second Amendment to the extent that it bans the possession of firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons.
2. Whether the Act violates the Second Amendment to the extent that it bans the possession of magazines and other firearm attachments that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons.
The brief then notes that the AR-15 is among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, and that those protections also include the magazines necessary to feed ammunition to the rifles.
* Todd Vandermyde provides more context…
* Gov. JB Pritzker addressed the filing today…
Q: The DOJ has now joined a lawsuit over the assault weapons ban and whatnot. Can you comment on that? And why are they wrong in getting involved with this?
Pritzker: Look, change of administration. They obviously don’t understand the damage that’s being done across the country where there are no assault weapons bans. And they have paid zero attention to the fact that in the 90s, when there was a national assault weapons ban, the number of killings went down significantly. They’re wrong-headed on so many things, but this is yet another of those.
…Adding… Illinois State Rifle Association…
Late Friday, the U.S. Justice Department filed an amicus brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of our challenge to the Illinois ban on commonly owned firearms. The Department of Justice argues that such bans violate the Second Amendment — a position we’ve consistently maintained since this unconstitutional legislation was first introduced several years ago.
“This historic and unprecedented move is welcomed news,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The ISRA remains on the front lines and continues to stand up to Gov. Pritzker and anti-gun legislators in Springfield on behalf of 2.5 million law-abiding, responsible firearms owners in Illinois – and this latest development proves it.
The ISRA has been working diligently behind the scenes to ensure that the Trump administration — particularly the Justice Department — holds Illinois’ anti-Second Amendment leaders accountable for their unconstitutional actions.
In a social media post over the weekend, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. See you in Court, Illinois.”
The ISRA is presently leading the charge as a named plaintiff on two cases and playing a supporting role in an additional five more – totaling 7 cases dealing with constitutional issues and on behalf of law-abiding gun owners in Illinois.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 2:20 pm:
I’m sickened that these people want to defend the existence of these weapons and large magazines. There is no defense, especially of large magazines. There’s only one use for those and that is mass killing. They should be ashamed of themselves.
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 2:52 pm:
God ‘n’ Guns.
SMH.
- Todd - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:07 pm:
Rich — thank you for the linq
Demoralized — did you happen to catch the part where they said bans on suppressors also violate the 2A?
- Nagidam - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:16 pm:
@Demoralized
===There is no defense, especially of large magazines===
The senator for Minnesota was shot 9 times. His wife was shot 8 times. By the grace of God, they survived. A collective 17 “hits” does not include any misses. Why would you want to limit a law-abiding citizen from defending themselves?
- Jack in Chatham - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:24 pm:
Would like to see some legal action regarding the melting point Statute too. Also the Second Amendment is about preventing and fighting tyranny, it is not about hunting or skeet or trap shooting. Having a maximum cap on Social Security taxes appears to be a form of tyranny we have endured since 1934 for one example. The top six percent of income earners do not pay social security taxes on every dollar of income. Very unfair.
- Notorious JMB - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:28 pm:
Given the Justices’ statements in recent gun cases out of Maryland and Mexico, it sounds very much like they want the Illinois case to come before them. Judge McGlynn built a very large record at the district level, and Justice Sotomayor’s opinion in the Mexico lawsuit states that .50 calibers are in common use (though 50s aren’t included in the current Illinois challenge). The challenge to Illinois law could become a major 2A decision by the Supreme Court. I’m sure the NRA will tag on at the end so they can take credit without actually doing anything.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:29 pm:
=== Also the Second Amendment is about preventing and fighting tyranny===
Many people call that anti-government terrorism. See: Minnesota.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:33 pm:
==did you happen to catch the part where they said bans on suppressors also violate the 2A?==
You’re so proud of yourself. Again. It’s sickening.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 3:33 pm:
==Why would you want to limit a law-abiding citizen from defending themselves?==
Oh please. Those magazines have absolutely nothing to do with self defense. To suggest that is asinine.
- Todd - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 4:13 pm:
Well D i don’t mind being on the right side of a constitutional issue
Just as the first protect modern communications the second protects modern arms even those not in existence at the time of the founding and that includes mags as well— oh and lets not forget homebuilt firearms as well. Not to mention judge McGlynn torched the need to register guns as well and we look forward to doing away with the FOID card as well
- JS Mill - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 4:14 pm:
=Demoralized — did you happen to catch the part where they said bans on suppressors also violate the 2A?=
Every time around those dedicated to nothing but the 2nd Amendment come up with a justification for more guns. Fine. But the 2nd Amendment only really covered muskets. That is the “historical” test.
==Why would you want to limit a law-abiding citizen from defending themselves?==
Unless you walk around with weapon drawn and treat everyone as a threat, it does not matter. And the parade over the weekend should give you an idea of what you would have to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. Spoiler alert: it is a tank.
- ImaginaryBaron - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 4:19 pm:
When Pica passed, I was among the voices spreading the unpopular view on this site that the law was unconstitutional and would not last after Bruen. It’s taken longer than I expected for the courts to move, but this DOJ filing shows that we are getting closer to the endgame.
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 4:30 pm:
“Also the Second Amendment is about preventing and fighting tyranny, …” … using flintlocks, not the weapon of choice (AR-15) of the most effective terrorist group of the late 20th Century.
- JB13 - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 4:52 pm:
– They obviously don’t understand the damage that’s being done across the country where there are no assault weapons bans –
That’s called “interest balancing.” And it’s not allowed for Second Amendment jurisprudence any longer. Which is why the Bevis decision was the legal equivalent of a tortured, burnt pretzel.
But I’m sure the actual billionaire lawyer for whom the Northwestern School of Law is named understands that.
- Bang bang shoot shoot - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 5:21 pm:
Never understood why Illinois banned suppressors which are legal in many other states. Illinois shooters have to use ear plugs to avoid going deaf.
- Todd - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 5:28 pm:
JS ==Every time around those dedicated to nothing but the 2nd Amendment come up with a justification for more guns. Fine. But the 2nd Amendment only really covered muskets. That is the “historical” test.==
Every time this comes up you guys just can’t help yourselves with that tired worn-out argument.
Given your take the First Amendment would be restricted to the soap box, printing press and quill. Yet Scalia, and a majority, saw it differently:
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the
Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
But you evidently don’t understand the “test” is the conduct protected by the text if it is, then it is up to the Government to show by history and tradition the type of law or regulation fits within that. Nice try in trying to re-write the test but you have jumped the shark from bordering to JS-frivolous
- JS Mill - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 6:11 pm:
=Every time this comes up you guys just can’t help yourselves with that tired worn-out argument.=
It is an historical fact. If history is tired that is on you.
=Given your take the First Amendment would be restricted to the soap box, printing press and quill. Yet Scalia, and a majority, saw it differently:=
You forget that the term is “speech” and it is unqualified unlike the 2nd Amendment. You may have forgotten…”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
Apparently Scalia and the other activist judges don’t have a copy of the constitution with those words. “test” is a contrivance of an activist court.
=”you guys”=
what exactly does that mean? I am a CCL holder and own many weapons. I just don’t cosplay army man to feel tough.
- Norseman - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 6:16 pm:
Todd loves his 2A mantra. “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger once said, ‘The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest. groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.’”
He also wrote: “The very language of the Second
Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires”
Having read 2A repeatedly, I concur with Burger. I suspect the multitude of people killed, including the kids slaughtered by assault weapons also concur.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Monday, Jun 16, 25 @ 9:23 pm:
@JS Mill: The core of recent USCt caselaw on guns is that they can ignore that clause about well-regulated militias. Someday there will be a majority of the Court that rediscovers that clause and restores balance to the country. In the meantime, Todd and his ilk are determined to rack up as many wins as they can with the justices that Lenard Leo bought for him. We will see what happens with this case. But the tide will turn. It always does.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 9:58 am:
It took 50 years to overturn Roe. I’ll take those odds
- We've never had one before - Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 12:12 pm:
>>>>You may have forgotten…
Please, explain the part about well regulated militia.
What does it mean, “well regulated?”
- lloyd - Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 1:06 pm:
== What does it mean, “well regulated?”==
Well rehearsed. Well practiced. Effective. Proficient. Expert marksmen with well weaponry in a good state of repair and readiness.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 17, 25 @ 1:10 pm:
===Well rehearsed. Well practiced===
Supervised by whom?