When federal judge will rule on Illinois’ gun ban challenge unclear
(The Center Square) – It’s now up to a federal judge to decide what’s in store for Illinois’ gun and magazine ban.
Closing arguments in the case Barnett v. Raoul were filed in the Southern District of Illinois federal court of Judge Stephen McGlynn by late Monday. McGlynn gave litigants that deadline at the conclusion of last month’s four-day bench trial in the case.
Plaintiffs argue the Protect Illinois Communities Act violates the Second Amendment for a variety of reasons, including banning firearms commonly owned for self defense. The state argued the banned guns are too similar to military firearms and not useful for self defense. The state also asked McGlynn to issue a stay on any possible permanent injunction to let them appeal.
Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde said that’s telling.
“‘Our arguments are so bad. Please give us a chance to get to the court of appeals.’ That’s what it said,” Vandermyde told The Center Square. “They’re reading the room the same way I’m reading the room, I guess.”
The law, enacted during lame duck session in January 2023, prohibits the sale and possession of more than 170 semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, and bans magazines of more than 15 for handguns and 10 for rifles. Among the banned firearms is the popular AR-15 rifle.
“This legislation will stop the spread of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and switches and make our state a safer place for all,” Pritzker said in a statement before signing the bill.
On preliminary grounds, McGlynn ruled in April 2023 that plaintiffs in the case had a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed McGlynn’s injunction after six days and later ruled the state was likely to win. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case on preliminary grounds so the case went back to McGlynn’s court for final judgment on the merits.
“This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. “But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment.”
Before concluding the bench trial last month in district court, McGlynn discussed the East St. Louis race riots of 1917 where more than 30 Black people were killed and dozens of structures destroyed in fires.
“What if they had some of these weapons? Who knows,” McGlynn said, reflecting that society is going to confront evil people and individuals could be called to defend themselves and their communities.
Vandermyde is confident McGlynn will rule in favor of the plaintiffs. It could be up to three weeks before such a ruling, as it was for the preliminary injunction issued last year. Vandermyde said it wouldn’t surprise him if the ruling on final judgment comes just before the Thanksgiving holiday.
“And gives us a ‘freedom week’ to include Black Friday and the state is left scrambling through a holiday weekend to try to get … an emergency order in front of the Court of Appeals,” Vandermyde said.
“Freedom week” refers to McGlynn’s order blocking the state from enforcing the law issued in late April 2023. Six days later, the appeals court put McGlynn’s order on hold. During those six days, individuals could begin the process of buying and transferring firearms, but some may not have been able to get the process done in time because of a mandated three-day waiting period.
Nicole Guvenoz with GAT Guns in East Dundee said the store is ready to deliver firearms to customers who bought them last year but couldn’t pick them up if McGlynn issues a permanent injunction against the law.
“We only need a cleared check, we don’t need a full 72 hour background check because they have already entered into the contract for the purchase of the sale of the gun,” Guvenoz told The Center Square last week.
Whatever the outcome of McGlynn’s order, it’s expected to be appealed to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
