Federal District Court Strikes Down IL’s “Assault Weapon” & “Large-Capacity Magazine” Bans in NRA-Supported Case

Opinion

Justice iStock-1245041394
IMG: iStock-1245041394

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois struck down provisions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) that prohibit “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” in an NRA-supported case, Barnett v. Raoul.

In a thorough, 168-page opinion, the district court applied the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges, as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Starting with the text, because the Supreme Court has stated that “common” arms are protected by the Second Amendment, but “dangerous and unusual” arms are not, the district court defined those terms. A “dangerous” arm, the court determined, is one “that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors.” An “unusual” arm is “an arm deploying an atypical method to neutralize an opponent in confrontation or that deploys a neutralizing agent that is caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous, or radioactive.” And a “common” arm encompasses “any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise ‘dangerous and unusual.’” Applying these definitions, the court concluded that the banned “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” are common arms covered by the Second Amendment.

Proceeding to its historical analysis, the court emphasized the importance of the right to keep and bear arms at the time of our nation’s Founding and then considered traditional regulations on that right. Ultimately, the court found no historical regulations that could justify PICA’s restrictions.

In conclusion, the court denounced “those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens’ individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class,” and ruled 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.”

The court did issue a 30-day stay, however, to allow the government an opportunity to appeal.  


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Federal Judge Strikes Down Illinois ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban: Major Win for Gun Owners’ Rights!

13 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Straight-Shootr

“The court did issue a 30-day stay, however, to allow the government an opportunity to appeal.”

BS.

It should have been in force THE MOMENT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED.

Novice.but.learning

Some very good news. This decision needs to move WEST and not just be in the midwest.

HLB

But wait, now we have Memphis doing the same thing as Chicago. This will never stop until We, the People, stop it.

And how can we do that? Strap on your weapons and visit the people who do not like us.

HLB

Nick

The NRA aka Negotiating Rights Away is irrelevant. They’ve been anti gun since 1934, when they supported the NFA, and nearly every anti gun law since. Now they pay hundreds of millions to an anti gun nut lawyer Brewer to try to save themselves from long deserved corruption charges. The case was NRA “supported”, is this like all the rest of the cases over the last 20 years and they file a brief, but don’t provide lawyers, and then claim credit? Notice there’s not mention of NRA lawyers being involved and I don’t recall hearing anything about the NRA’s involvement… Read more »