Plaintiffs file final arguments in challenge to Illinois’ gun ban

(The Center Square) – In their final briefs before an expected ruling, plaintiffs in the challenge to Illinois’ gun and magazine ban argue the Protect Illinois Communities Act should be struck down by a federal district judge.

The consolidated lawsuits in the Southern District of Illinois were filed shortly after Illinois banned the sale and possession of more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities. The Protect Illinois Communities Act was enacted in January 2023.

Preliminary actions, which included a six-day injunction against the law in late April 2023, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied taking the case because it wasn’t on final judgment.

Following a four-day bench trial on final judgment in the district court last month, Judge Stephen McGlynn gave litigants 30 days to file final briefs. The state as defendants filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law Monday afternoon.

“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a permanent injunction because they have not prevailed on their claims,” one filing from the state says. “If the Court disagrees, however, any injunction it enters must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending review by appellate courts.”

Among the state’s closing arguments are that restricted items “were designed for military combat,” “far exceeds what is commonly used for self-defense” and the law “responds to unprecedented societal concerns.”

Monday evening, attorneys for the various plaintiffs groups challenging the ban filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In one, plaintiffs proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, lawyers argue the banned items are arms that ordinary people would and do keep for lawful purposes, including for self defense. They also argue the banned firearms are not exclusively or predominantly used by the military or exclusively useful for military purposes.

Another argument plaintiffs leveled is there is no historical tradition to justify Illinois’ law.

“[T]here is no enduring tradition of prohibiting the general public from keeping and bearing common arms based on the danger that a small number of bad actors will put those arms to unlawful (or even awful) ends,” plaintiffs argue. “Rather, our Nation’s historical tradition is one of welcoming technological advancements that make firearms safer, easier to use, and more effective. PICA is out of step with that longstanding historical tradition.”

The Langley plaintiffs group argued for summary judgment against the law.

“The firearms and magazines in question are, again, typically possessed for lawful purposes,” the Langley plaintiffs said in their brief. “In fact, for most of the firearms at issue, there is no evidence of any criminal use, at all.”

Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois plaintiffs argued the law’s restrictions of firearm parts and registration requirement violates the Second Amendment.

“One obviously cannot maintain proficiency with a firearm that is in disrepair or that does not suit her specific physical needs,” the FFL of Illinois said in their brief. “The ability to repair, alter, and make firearms to address those practical concerns is thus conduct that the Second Amendment necessarily protects.”

McGlynn is expected to issue a ruling soon.