The ban was signed into law in January by Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) and instituted penalties for those who carry, possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, import, or purchase an “assault weapon” or .50 caliber rifle. Anyone who already owned such a weapon must now register it with the Illinois State Police, creating a registry of owners of semiautomatic rifles.
Any kits or accessories that may increase the fire rate of a semiautomatic firearm are also prohibited, and the law imposed a limit on purchasing specific types of magazines.
But Judge Stephen Patrick McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois issued a ruling halting enforcement of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) until the case over its legality is resolved at trial.
McGlynn said the law will likely be found unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs who brought the now-consolidated cases would suffer harm without the preliminary injunction.
In his 29-page ruling, the judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed Bruen decision last year. That decision came less than two weeks before the tragic Independence Day parade shooting at Highland Park in 2022.
McGlynn noted the “senseless crimes of a relative few” may not be justification for denying the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. He added that the court “must be mindful of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
He asserted the state must prove that the weapons and magazines being banned are not in “common use” and are types that have been regulated historically.
Illinois attorneys claimed that the law is consistent with historical tradition in the U.S. because high capacity magazines and “assault weapons” were not commonly used when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.
McGlynn disputed this in his opinion, declaring the state’s argument was “bordering on the frivolous.” He based this observation on the Supreme Court declaring that the Second Amendment protects firearms that did not exist when the Constitution was written.
He further asked in the opinion if “PICA can be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and with Bruen?”
Answering his own rhetorical question, McGlynn said “that is the issue before this court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no.’”
His decision followed by just a week an opposite ruling by a different federal judge, Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois. She denied a motion to halt enforcement of the state statute.
Plaintiffs in that legal action will appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
One of the plaintiffs in the most recent case, Gun Owners of America (GOA), celebrated the temporary injunction. GOA senior vice president Erich Pratt declared “Governor Pritzker and his anti-gun cabal in the legislature thought they could steamroll the Second Amendment, and this ruling makes clear that they abused their authority and infringed on their citizens’ rights.” He added, “we look forward to continuing this fight.”
Judge McGlynn wrote that Illinois has other ways to combat gun violence through civil and criminal laws already on the books. “Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously.”
The state promised to fight back against the temporary injunction. Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office released a statement Friday declaring intent “to file an appeal and remain committed to defending the constitutionality of the Protect Illinois Communities Act.”
In the meantime, Illinois gun dealers report seeing a quick surge in foot traffic and online interest in the products they had previously been required to remove from their shelves.
