Crucial Battle for 2A Rights Begins Over Illinois Gun Ban

On September 16, 2024, in what is known as the Barnett v. Raoul case, which is a bench trial challenging the Illinois gun and magazine bans. The attorney for Barnett spoke on behalf of all plaintiffs involved.

Judge Stephen McGlynn, presiding in the Southern District Federal Court in East St. Louis, Illinois, heard the case based on whether the ban violates the 2nd Amendment. Judge McGlynn had previously rejected a request for summary judgment based on the allegations that the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) violated the 4th and 14th Amendment rights of gun owners. In the Langley v. Raoul case, plaintiffs also failed to successfully argue that the mandated registration requirement in the PICA was a violation of the 5th Amendment. Based on those previous decisions, the case is now focused solely on the possible violations of the 2nd Amendment.

Judge McGlynn had previously granted an injunction against the PICA last April and said that the plaintiff’s claim that the law infringes on the right to keep in bear arms would likely be a successful argument. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction in November 2023 with the claim that litigation by the state, using the theory that AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms fall outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment, would likely prevail. It is now up to the state to prove that to be true.

Greg Bishop of Bishop on Air, reporting for The Center Square, documented the four days of testimony via the X platform. In court, on the first day of the hearing, September 16, 2024, the attorney for Barnett urged Judge McGlynn to find the gun ban unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction. Capitalizing on emotional leverage, the state opened by referring to the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting as a reason to uphold the gun ban. The state told the court that the appeals court sided with the state and indicated that they would successfully ban the AR-15. The claim was based on the idea that since M-16s could be banned, the AR-15 should be banned as well because it is similar in appearance, although they clearly function very differently. The state said, evidence shows the difference between M-16 and AR-15 is “immaterial.”

At the time of the appeal, McGlynn had summarized the Seventh Circuit’s position as, “Just because an arm has a cousin in the military does not mean that the arm is beyond Second Amendment protection.”

In what appeared to be a break during the first day of testimony, the owner of Piasa Armory, Scott Pulaski, told news cameras “The state seems to be attacking the use for self-defense case rather than common lawful purposes.” He went on to say, “the Plantiff attorneys are going for that all lawful purposes and in common use.”

Pulaski expressed confidence that due to the fact that there is no historical analog for gun regulations like PICA, another case that was headed to the Supreme Court would end the attempted bans on AR-15-style rifles nationwide.

Most of the testimony throughout the 4-day hearing focused on the similarities and differences between automatic rifles that are used in the military and semi-automatic rifles, which are in common use among civilians. There were a few key highlights from the hearing that took place from September 16th through the 19th.

In an attempt to bring anti-gun propaganda into the courtroom, the state went low. It resorted to using children as a way of demonizing firearm accessories when it implied that adjustable stocks make it easy for children to use rifles. Judge McGlynn quickly debunked the state’s claim after an objection was made. The state also tried using the politically charged theatre killing as a way of influencing the judge. In typical left-wing fashion, the state used cheap rhetoric and anti-gun propaganda throughout the hearing.

Plaintiffs called Steven Randal Watt to testify and when questioned about specific pistol, rifle, and shotgun features, Watt discussed the importance of items such as barrel shrouds, pistol grips, ambidextrous controls, and detachable magazines as being very suitable for self-defense.

Watt also said he always uses 30 round magazines, and when referring to self-defense situations, he said, “Never know how much ammo you may need.” He also noted to the Judge that he owns threaded barrel pistols for compensator and suppressors to protect what little hearing he has left.

The Plaintiffs closed by pointing out the fact that firearm accessories are useful for self-defense, and the limitation of magazine capacity puts the victim at risk.

The state closed by focusing on firearm attachments and attempting to tie firearm ownership to the need for specific firearms for the purpose of hunting. This is a tired strategy used to create the notion that if a gun is not used for hunting, it’s not needed and, therefore, shouldn’t be allowed. As if “need” was a prerequisite to exercising a “right.” The state also said semi-automatic guns aren’t suitable for self-defense and fit the “dangerous and unusual weapons” definition in an attempt to qualify them under Heller precedence.

After four days of trial consisting of extensive testimony, cross-examination, and detailed explanations of the firearms in question, Judge Stephen McGlynn made his final statement in which he addressed that this was an important case and expected more filings addressing “history and tradition.”

The Judge addressed race riots in 1917 when blacks were armed and able to shoot back at rioters who burned down houses owned by black people. Judge McGlynn explained how the rioters went to the National Guard and complained that it wasn’t fair to them that their victims were armed. The judge went on to present a visual representation of other heinous things that were done to black people during that time and although they were armed, they seemed to be insufficiently armed because much violence was still inflicted upon them.

Judge McGlynn also mentioned similar situations that occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921 and more recently in Aurora, Colorado, where well-armed international gangsters went door to door attacking people. The judge mentioned that confronting evil people has been a part of our history, implying the importance of the 2nd Amendment. McGlynn then gave 30 days to submit briefs and adjourned.

Will Judge McGlynn’s final comments indicate how he will rule in this case? Will he issue a permanent injunction on final judgement and move the case up to the appeals court? AmmoLand will keep a close eye on this case. A permanent injunction would stop enforcement of the law, but likely go to the appeals court and then up to the Supreme Court.

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.