Federal Judge Blocks Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

Court Blocks Pittsburgh Gun Control Scheme in Lawsuit Brought by FPC
Federal Judge Blocks Illinois Assault Weapons Ban

EAST ST. LOUIS, Illinois — An Illinois District Court Judge in East St. Louis blocked the state’s new “assault weapons” ban. The decision came after Illinois successfully petitioned the court to combine four different lawsuits challenging the new law into a single case. The state claimed since the cases were all arguing against the ban, it would save the state money in litigation fees.

Many in the gun world thought the state pushed to combine the case because it would be easier to defeat a single case in front of a single judge than give the pro-gun side multiple attempts at knocking down the law. If that was the state’s strategy, it spectacularly backfired.

Protect Illinois Communities Act, or PICA, was enacted earlier this year. The constitutionally dubious law banned most semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15, the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the country.

Current owners of AR-15s were grandfathered in but had to register their firearms with the state. The law also banned so-called “high capacity” magazines that held more than ten rounds. The sale or transfer of these magazines was banned.

Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, of the Southern District of Illinois and Trump appointee, heard the motions for a preliminary injunction. The judge ruled that the PICA was likely unconstitutional thanks to the Bruen decision and that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits of the cases. The judge also stated that the Second Amendment is not for hunting but for the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrannical government.

“During the founding era, ‘[i]t was understood across the political spectrum that the right . . . might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.’ Therefore, although ‘most undoubtedly thought [the Second Amendment] even more important for self-defense and hunting’ the additional purpose of securing the ability of the citizenry to oppose an oppressive military, should the need arise, cannot be overlooked,” the judge wrote in his 29-page decision.

The judge also weighed into the controversy surrounding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rule on pistol stabilizing devices.

The ATF’s new rule makes most firearms equipped with pistol braces short-barreled rifles that are subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Judge McGlynn claims that the Second Amendment protects pistol braces.

“PICA also interferes with the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for one group of individuals — those with disabilities. To provide one example, consider arm braces for semi-automatic pistols. As noted above, PICA prohibits the use of an arm brace on any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine without any caveat or exceptions. The Department of Justice has also attempted to regulate possession and registration of arm braces. As reason and the ATF final rule evidences, braces are needed by certain individuals with disabilities to operate a firearm. Thus, arm braces are an integral part of the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for such individuals and can also be considered an ‘arm,'” the judge stated.

Two of the groups that brought a lawsuit were Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF). The win came on the 40th anniversary of the founding of GOF. GOF Board member Sam Paredes celebrated the victory.

“We are excited about this ruling and thrilled to see such strong commentary from Judge McGlynn. Especially as GOF celebrates its 40th anniversary today, what a great present for us and the American people. We will continue to hammer the point home to anyone who hopes to infringe on our rights – fall in line, or we will make you.”

Illinois is expected to appeal the decision and ask for the preliminary injunction to be stayed.


About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

John Crump
17 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Colt

“The state claimed since the cases were all arguing against the ban, it would save the state money in litigation fees.”

Then why pass bullshit illegal and unconstitutional laws?

Arny

If these SOB had to pay for the courts personally. None of this would be happening. They need to quit using tax payer dollars for their anti Constitutional BS. That money could be better used say on INFRASTRUCTURE. LOL

Bubba

The answer is simple: SCOTUS Can Deem the NFA AND GCA68 Unconstitutional.
Then fire every employee at FATF.
Then Hang ANYONE that still violates the constitution…

Enjoy a beer and the constitution being put back to use… 😉

Arizona

They can still be the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, and explosives, and arrest people who fake the tax stamp on cigarette plastic wrap, or sell bootleg whiskey, I guess. Even go after mafia construction crews selling dynamite. The BATE agency.

Stag

They have absolutely zero constitutional authority to regulate any of that.

DIYinSTL

Move them back under the IRS, where I believe they started, and let them monitor tobacco and alcohol revenue. Ag or BLM (land management) can handle the licensing for explosives. Things that go boom when they shouldn’t can be investigated by the eFfed-ed up Bunch of Incorrigibles.

Oldman

I would agree with you on that and add one more thing: After you move them back under the IRS, you ban the IRS and then the deep state will go away.
Simple…….

swmft

alcohol and pot and tobacco products sold across state lines is in federal jurisdiction but not local

swmft

bait and switch agency, they all need time in Kansas breaking rocks

Darkman

This is the problem with getting to the point where the Courts get to decide. Earlier in the week a different Judge denied an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. Until the ‘People’ of Illinois Stand Up and eliminate those who would deny them their Constitutional Rights. It will always be left up to the discretion of a Court. To decide if they deserve their Rights.

Arizona

Ultimately, it is always up to whatever person, party or organization that will deploy the most violence to enforce the decision… whether it is just the threat or whether the violence needs be carried out a time or three to set the precedent. It is the same over history for as far as one cares to look back.

Bubba

.

Last edited 11 months ago by Bubba
Arny

D id this story fly under the radar of Ammoland ? I know you can’t cover everything. And I did research past articles to see if it was covered. I do miss a few articles at times. But I could find nothing on Pa wanting to serialize ammo. lol
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/pennsylvania-bill-serialized-ammo-encoded-ammunition-database/

DIYinSTL

Not yet covered on Ammoland to my recollection either. Maybe because it is such a stupid law. A single 12 Ga. skeet load has 1-1/8 oz. of #9 shot. That’s 658 lead pellets, 0.08″ diameter, in every cartridge. Millions shot every year. Serialization of every projectile is less feasible than California’s law for any new handgun to be legal it must doubly mark the casing with identifying info. So is Rep. Steven Kinsey so stupid he thinks this is possible or does he know it is not and that his proposed bill would outlaw possession of all ammunition?

Arny

I was wondering the same thing. These people are on some BAD drugs these days. lol

Last edited 11 months ago by Arny
swmft

must be stronger than lsd

Arny

I would also like to see how they would enforce dispensing of old ammo. Door to door?