BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging the Illinois ban on so-called “assault weapons” have filed a response brief in the state’s appeal in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in the Southern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of that state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” in April. The case is known as Harrel v. Raoul.
Joining SAF in this case are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition. Marengo Guns, the C4 Gun Store and Dane Harrel, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk, Washington, DC. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA).
“Our case has been consolidated with other cases challenging the ban,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This lawsuit against Illinois’ so-called assault weapons ban is one of eight Second Amendment Foundation legal challenges against unconstitutional semiautomatic gun ban laws across the country, and in this particular case, Illinois seems determined to convince the court that the guns included in the ban do not fall within the definition of Second Amendment-protected arms, when clearly they do.”
“The state’s arguments seem to suggest the court should ignore the Supreme Court doctrines set down in last year’s Bruen case,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The state would have the court believe these so-called ‘assault weapons’ are something relatively new, despite the fact such firearms and their magazines have been around for generations, and the technology has been around for more than a century.”
In his ruling, Judge McGlynn clearly observed, “A constitutional right is at stake. Some Plaintiffs cannot purchase their firearm of choice, nor can they exercise their right to self-defense in the manner they choose. They are bound by the State’s limitations.”
“There is no wiggle room in Judge McGlynn’s remark,” Gottlieb said. “The ban is an affront to constitutional rights, and should be nullified.”