BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in one of three federal court actions challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” and their magazines in Illinois have filed a petition for rehearing before an en banc panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The consolidated cases are known as Harrel v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Raoul. SAF is a plaintiff in the Harrel case, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store and a private citizen, Dane Harrel, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Mark L. Shaw, Jennifer Craigmile Neubauer and Michael A. Danfore of Waukegan, Ill., and C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir of Long Beach, Calif, along with David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom of Washington, D.C.
Background:
The consolidated cases known as Harrel v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Raoul involve challenges to Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons” and their magazines. These cases have been brought forward by various plaintiffs including individuals, gun stores, and firearms associations, represented by a team of attorneys from different states.
Harrel v. Raoul: This lawsuit, filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store, and a private citizen Dane Harrel, challenges Illinois’ ban on certain firearms and magazines. SAF’s petition emphasizes that the appellate panel’s decision conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, arguing that modern semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment because they are in common use and not considered “dangerous or unusual” arms
Barnett v. Raoul: This case involves similar challenges to the Illinois ban. Plaintiffs include Caleb Barnett and others, with the case being consolidated with several others, including Harrel v. Raoul, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Jay Robert Pritzker, Langley v. Kelly, Herrera v. Raoul, and Bevis v. City of Naperville
Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Raoul: This case, formally titled Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, et al. v. Jay Robert Pritzker, et al., is another challenge against the Illinois ban. The specifics of this case are aligned with the overarching theme of contesting the state’s restrictions on certain firearms and their magazines. This case is also consolidated with the aforementioned cases
The consolidation of these cases indicates a significant legal challenge to Illinois’ firearms legislation. The cases are notable for their direct challenge to state laws in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, which set a precedent for interpreting the Second Amendment in the context of modern firearms. The outcome of these cases could have substantial implications for gun legislation and Second Amendment jurisprudence in the United States.
“In our petition,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we note how the three-judge appellate panel essentially thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen. Without explanation, the 2-1 appeals panel majority arbitrarily found that modern semiautomatic rifles are apparently not protected by the Second Amendment even though they clearly are protected, primarily because they are in common use and are not considered ‘dangerous or unusual’ arms. The three-judge panel opinion cannot be allowed to stand.”
“Just because the appellate panel apparently disagrees with the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment,.” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “they cannot simply reject the high court’s rulings and make up their own by subjectively determining all guns on the banned list are suitable only for military purposes and therefore are not protected by the Second Amendment. We’re hopeful a full en banc panel will correct this error.”
About Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Let’s vote the City of Chicago out of Illinois & make them their own state. This way liberal Democrat Progressive Chicagoans can do whatever they want. New York City should be separate state. The entire state of California should be their own country; they are certainly NOT American.
C’mon Alan, the standard is “dangerous and unusual.” It’s the antis that want it to be “or.”
I’m so glad I moved out of Illinois! Things are much better in Florida! If you have the money, you can own Fully Automatic, short barrel weapons and suppressors!
What are the elements of a 1983 claim?
To state a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff is required to allege that (1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.
Why is SECTION 1983 used to sue state government (s) for violations of our 2nd Amendment rights
The courts, are what got Illinois firearms owners in this mess. Along with their votes. I’ll guarantee a hugh number of Illinois firearms owners voted for Democrats, over the last 20 years. As the laws slowly squeezed their Rights out of the 2nd Amendment. Because they were union. Because their family always voted Democrat. Because their Rights weren’t all that important. Until they were. You deserve the tyrants and tyranny… You allow. Illinois firearms owners have allowed this to happen.