-
National Impact of Illinois Semi-Auto Ban Challenge: This trial is part of several consolidated cases that could set nationwide precedents on Second Amendment rights.
-
Supreme Court’s Potential Role: Justice Thomas hinted the Supreme Court may review the case after final judgment, despite declining to intervene now.
-
Upcoming Trial Crucial for Second Amendment: Experts will argue why firearms like the AR-15 are essential for self-defense, with the trial potentially influencing future rulings.
Second Amendment Law Center and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are happy to announce that the trial begins next week in the cases challenging Illinois’s ban on common semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and gun parts (Note that several cases have been consolidated into one appeal from Barnett v. Raoul, Harrel v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker).
CRPA and 2ALC have been heavily involved in supporting these cases and the Plaintiffs from the beginning. Cases challenging semi-auto bans nationwide are moving through the courts and will have impacts nationally. It is vital that we participate wherever we can as courts set precedent for the future. Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, FFL-Illinois, the Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Guns Save Life, the Second Amendment Foundation, and several other groups have supported and litigated these cases since they were filed.
We initially won a preliminary injunction blocking the laws from Judge McGlynn on April 28, 2023. The State appealed, and on November 3, 2023, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly ruled that the law was constitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment.
The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to review that misguided opinion, and earlier in the summer, on July 2, 2024, we were disappointed when the Supreme Court would not immediately review the Seventh Circuit’s terrible ruling in these cases. So, the incorrect ruling from the Seventh Circuit allowed Illinois’ ban on many commonly owned firearms to go into effect. However, the Supreme Court may very well accept the case later. A concurrence from Justice Thomas made clear that the reason the Court was denying review was procedural – the case was before SCOTUS at that time on a preliminary injunction appeal, and a final judgment had not happened yet in the lower court.
Significantly, SCOTUS did not decide that the cases challenging the Illinois law had no merit, and in fact, Justice Thomas concluded, “If the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”
This means we must litigate the case again in the trial court, which had previously agreed with our position and issued a preliminary injunction that the Seventh Circuit ultimately overturned. The litigation has been ongoing for months, leading up to the trial that is set to start next week.
Preparation for the trial has been going on since then. And it has been a lot of work. The plaintiffs began assembling evidence, obtaining expert opinions, and preparing exhibits and witnesses, all necessary to take the case to trial. Judge McGlynn set a trial date in September – a pace that is practically lightspeed in the federal court system. The attorneys will argue that while the Seventh Circuit’s ruling was incorrect, we can still win even under the Seventh Circuit’s erroneous and a-historical standard.
We expect experts will be called to argue why firearms like the AR-15 are great options for self-defense and to explain how they differ from their fully automatic counterparts that are used by the military. The State will have “experts” who will be cross-examined. After that, the court will prepare its judgment. This is a scorched earth fight for your Second Amendment rights, and we need your support to keep up the fight!
Once the district court issues a final judgment following the trial, the matter will move back to the Seventh Circuit and possibly then to the Supreme Court.
As we support the efforts in Barnett, our legal team made time to draft an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court granting review in Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s similar law. The Fourth Circuit recently upheld the final judgment after en banc review, meaning there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court will hear the case.
We want to thank all those groups who have joined in supporting these important cases and the continued fight ahead like Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition (SADEC), Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois (FFL-IL), Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and Second Amendment Foundation.
For updates visit the Second Amendment Law Center.
I feel like (What’s the use anyway) So the supreme court says for the second time Bruen. Since they can write their own state laws I guess it’s just another law suit that will be won and like Gruesome Newsome and Kathy batshit hochel they will do what they want anyway.
The DOJ needs to make sure that laws are enforced that are handed down by the supreme court to the states. This circumventing the determination of the court is a violation of our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
It may be up to the people to strike down the law that the Constitution does not allow. Things are kind of coming to a head now and we can not let our future fall victim to an incomplete win.
HLB
Some of these judges have been in office way too long Now they make up their own laws. On these semi auto firearms bans, what about semi auto rifles make before 1950? Are these considered ” assault weapons” too? I’ve talked to a few gun owners about semi auto rifles bans and they say “well, if they ban semi auto rifles, I’ve still got my bolt action rifles and they would never ban those”. Wanna bet? After the Kennedy assassination back in 1963, there were politicians who wanted to ban all bolt action rifles claiming that this would stop assassins!… Read more »
And that is when China and Russia and North Korea will invade this Country!!!
Has any lawyer ever actually plead that our Founders, penning the Second amendment, intended citizens to keep’n’bear arms of current state-of-the-art technology, military capable, to defend “…the security of a free state..” not rubberband guns and SuperSoakers?? Full autos and all NFA items for all peeps!!!! No sporting purposes clause in my 2A copy. Hunting, paper punching, shits’n’giggles are merely practice for the true 2A intent. But, then, understanding that is the why behind the Libturds’ anti-gun fetish….preserving their own tyrannical asses from armed patriots…..as with King Georgie.