* Press release…
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations filed a lawsuit today challenging the Illinois law signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker that bans commonly owned firearms and magazines.
“The Supreme Court already ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep arms that are commonly used by the people,” said John Weber, NRA Illinois state director. “Gov. Pritzker’s decision to ignore the court and sign this bill demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rule of law and a willful ignorance of the nightmare he and his anti-gun allies in the statehouse have created with their soft-on-crime policies.”
Originally known as House Bill 5471, the law bans many semi-automatic firearms that law-abiding citizens commonly own for self-defense, competition, and recreation. It also bans certain spare parts for those firearms, handgun magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, long gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and a “combination[s] of parts” from which such magazines can be assembled. Additionally, the bill also expands the duration of “red flag” law restraining orders from six to 12 months.
“Instead of arresting, prosecuting, and punishing the criminals who break the law, Gov. Pritzker is focusing his attention on those who haven’t broken any laws. The people of Illinois deserve better,” Weber concluded.
That’s definitely one to watch.
*** UPDATE *** Another one…
Members of the Illinois Gun Rights Alliance (ILGRA) today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently adopted Protect Illinois Communities Act, alleging it to be an infringement on the constitutionally protected activity of Illinois sportsmen, firearms retailers, distributors, and manufacturers, and lawful users of firearms. Defendants are Governor Pritzker, Attorney General of Illinois Kwame Rauol, and Brendan F. Kelly, Director of the Illinois State Police.
Named plaintiffs in this action are:
• Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Inc – the FFL Dealers’ Association
• Guns Save Life – an Illinois-based, grass-roots gun rights organization
• Gun Owners of America - a national grass-roots gun rights organization
• Three private citizens
• One local dealer
“We are, or represent, members and supporters who are law-abiding Illinois residents who seek to purchase, sell, and protect themselves, and/or their homes and families with firearms owned and in common use by millions of Americans for self-defense,” the complaint begins.
“We began with the so-called ‘Assault Weapon’ ban,” said Mandi Sano, FFL-IL Spokesman. “As the Governor and General Assembly gleefully strip law-abiding Illinois retailers and gun-owners of their gun rights, property rights, and privacy, we will not stand by. We will act.”
“Our group has said all along that we will not help the State craft a ‘better bill,’ we will not provide subject matter expertise, and that if the State wishes to read our opinions, it may do so in the complaint,” added FFL-IL President Dan Eldridge.
John Boch, Executive Director of Guns Save Life, Inc. holds that, “the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act does nothing to actually protect Illinois communities. Its only effect is to criminalize law-abiding gun owners. The General Assembly should instead be holding criminals accountable for violent crimes.”
The measure remains broadly unpopular, sparking a surge in purchases before the Act’s effective date and drawing the opposition of more than 80 of the State’s 102 Sheriffs.
“The Supreme Court has reset the table by striking down New York’s concealed carry ‘may-issue’ law and along with it magazine limits in California and New Jersey, and Maryland’s ’assault weapon’ ban. We seek immediate state-wide relief from enforcement of this unconstitutional law and look forward to prevailing in the Federal Court.” concluded Ms. Sano.
Click here for the suit.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 3:25 pm:
Both. And. No one is saying NOT to prosecute criminals. Both. And.
- H-W - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 3:27 pm:
I agree, this is one to watch. I would suggest “the” one to watch.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 3:29 pm:
For what it’s worth this suit and the ISRA and company suits are the ones most likely to succeed IMHO. I’d expect at least one more federal suit from GOA. So 3 to watch.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 3:35 pm:
This is the ball game. This isn’t the grifty cash cow, this is the case or type of case that will clear what this law is or will it still be
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 3:45 pm:
OW beat me to it so I’ll simply add +1.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:01 pm:
Well-reasoned and researched complaint. In the fact portion, there is a clear and defensible claim that modern Semi-autos which are the most popular rifles sold and are indeed in “common use”. The Friedman and Wilson cases are no longer good law due to Bruen.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:07 pm:
we also filed our suit in Southern district court with the Dealers, GOA, GSL and others
- New Day - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:18 pm:
“Gov. Pritzker is focusing his attention on those who haven’t broken any laws”
But of course once gun owners violate the laws and shoot people, we the NRA and pro-gun fanatics (please don’t call them 2nd amendment activists since they so blatantly ignore the first 13 words about militias) will still rally in their favor assuming they’re white. See, e.g. Kyle Rittenhouse, Philando Castile.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:23 pm:
A different class of attorneys here. Pinter/Lothson are from a powerful Illinois firm. Paul Clement was the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States and is recognized as an expert SCOTUS litigator.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:27 pm:
===Instead of arresting, prosecuting, and punishing the criminals who break the law, Gov. Pritzker is focusing his attention on those who haven’t broken any laws===
Unless I am missing something, every firearm used in a mass shooting has been a legally purchased firearm.
Also, what others have said: no one is saying to to prosecute the criminals. Both/and.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:40 pm:
I wish these cases could be expedited some how and get right to Supreme Court
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:49 pm:
= and are indeed in “common use”=
Meh.
=we also filed our suit=
The mouse in his pocket is confused.
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:49 pm:
-This is the ball game. This isn’t the grifty cash cow, this is the case or type of case that will clear what this law is or will it still be-
Darn. The big hitters are in. I was kind of hoping to see how Tom’s schtick would play in DC.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:58 pm:
=“common use”=
Common use is a contrivance of an activist set of jurists that were looking for a rationalisation that would give their hypocrisy on prior “originalist” and “contextualist” statements. There is nothing in the record of the framers that pertains to “common use” that I have ever read.
Ultimately, the USSC may in fact limit this law and it may take some time to get back to a more honest and factual approach to the constitution. The fact remains that the 1934 National Firearms act is still in full force. Were I arguing this case I would attack “common use” hard.
Until then, the pro-gun violence people can continue to refer to Buen and Heller, but I think this court (as activist as they are) is less predictable than they think.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:08 pm:
JS — feel free, but we will be arguing soon that the problem with the NRA is chicken and egg. Are rare– not common but for the over regulation. If so the regulation can’t stand case in point look at suppressors and what happens when the bans are removed perfect case study
- Southern Dude - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:15 pm:
=== Until then, the pro-gun violence people can continue to refer to Buen and Heller –
Pro-gun violence people? Wow, go back to Facebook.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:15 pm:
pro gun violence people. pretty nice stuff.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:20 pm:
Sportsmen protected. Men. Men. Men. Men. And violence.
- very old soil - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:21 pm:
What JS Mill said
- Commissar Gritty - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:22 pm:
The NRA and conservatives in general suddenly giving a hoot about the rule of law actually made me chortle.
- This - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:22 pm:
What’s tragic is that all of my NRA friends have quit the NRA over the assault weapons and high capacity magazines issue.
They strongly favor banning them. They are disgusted that the NRA has lost any common-sense ability to push common-sense safety bills.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:24 pm:
=go back to Facebook.=
Never been there.
But when you prioritize guns over human life what else can be surmised?
= feel free,=
Honestly. The entire rest of your post simply did not make sense.
- ZC - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:29 pm:
Lots of discussion about “in common use” but again since the Court itself has given no meaningful, detailed guidance what is “common” or how you tell, except that handguns count as “common,” it remains “Throw a bunch of cherry-picked stats at the Supreme Court, and hope some of them stick.”
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:46 pm:
== Were I arguing this case I would attack “common use” hard. ==
The more complete phrase is “in common use for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. That is not exclusive of anything else. Lawful purposes will be the key that swings common use again the AWB.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:53 pm:
=Lawful purposes will be the key that swings common use again the AWB.=
Do you have a quote from 5 of the USSC justices stating that as afct or is that your opinion? Guessing the latter.
WHat the court has demonstrated is that you can select, deselect, or “cherry-pick” just about anything.
For instance, this court decided to ignore the first words of the Second Amendment in the last decision. So focusing on “common” is right in line with this courts norm busting.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:59 pm:
I’m with JS Mill. And from the polling data I’ve seen the voters are as well. With 39 mass shootings this month alone and no solutions being offered by the NRA or any other pro gun organization it’s easy to see why.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 6:10 pm:
JS Mill your common use point was fantastic and logical. Quite a contrast to that spread by the so-called originalists.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 6:28 pm:
== “Throw a bunch of cherry-picked stats at the Supreme Court, and hope some of them stick.” ==
It was reported that the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 model semi-automatic rifle (one of the Armalite Rifle variants specifically listed by name in the enacted bill) was in the top ten best selling rifles over the past decade, and the top selling rifle one of those years. That’s not cherry picking numbers; that’s sales data reported by the firearms industry. Assuming sales equals “in common use” to the courts.
- ZC - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 6:43 pm:
>> It was reported that the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 model semi-automatic rifle (one of the Armalite Rifle variants specifically listed by name in the enacted bill) was in the top ten best selling rifles over the past decade, and the top selling rifle one of those years.
1) How many guns in absolute terms is that, and does that part matter? What % of the population are we talking here? I read that of all luxury SUVs in the US, the Lexus RV is the best-selling one recently. Does that make it common?
2) As you note can we equate gun sales with citizen ownership, since a lot of these are presumably going to firing ranges (which are still legal I believe) or (perhaps) to preppers stockpiling arsenals in their basements? Or if older or middle-aged suburban or rural whites disproportionately amass gun collections, do they get to define what’s “common” now for all the rest of us?
3) Do we really want to turn over the definition and (maybe in effect, if this is what does it) the legal power to dictate what guns are “common” under the Constitution, to the firearms industries’ own trade figures that (thanks to the NRA in part) can’t really be cross-checked independently?
I don’t mean to be flippant, but there are a lot of question marks here. Absolutely the Court -could- rule this way. It would not surprise me in the least. Or as I think you noted once, they could kind of split the baby and come up with some sort of rule supporting some of these and ruling down others.
There’s some other stuff in the opinion. Actually the most compelling stuff I found was a reference to one survey commissioned by an academic at Georgetown, which tried to put together a national firearms survey in 2021 by an independent polling firm; the academic appears legit. But, I know enough about academic research and polling technology, to be extremely hesitant about hanging the meaning of the Constitution on one non-replicated online survey. And think about bad incentives. That’s … a dicey way to determine what’s constitutional, “Look at this one poll we found.”
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 7:06 pm:
=Assuming sales equals “in common use” to the courts.=
RNUG, with respect, I just do not see how it can. There are clearly hoarders that have dozens, even hundreds of guns. And “use” means exactly that, using the object.
Certainly someone has used an assault rifle for self defense. But the majority of stories in the media indicate handguns are most often used. And that is far from scientific. I looked for studies on the topic and didn’t find much that wasn’t poll centric, something that we have learned may or may not be accurate and it really depends on the poll. But the information I found seems to indicate that the use of a gun, much less an assault rifle, for self defense is an unusual occurrence.
There are 333,000,000 Americans per the most recent census. For something to be considered in “common use” I would think at least 20% of the population would need to use it regularly. That means roughly 66,000,000. I don’t see it.
Again, using the literalist or contextualist argument style of the current USSC as proclaimed by many of our conservative justices.
- CJA - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 7:13 pm:
JS,
Dude, it’s the Heller decision. Mentioned in several places. So, I am not making it uo.
- Pretzel - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 7:57 pm:
In the Caetano case 200,000 was sufficient.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 8:00 pm:
So they’ll combine cases with Devore becoming 5-10th chair and he’ll keep his money while ISRA does the real work especially when it goes federal.
I wouldn’t think this was a clear case, but given the, ahem, historical research the US Supreme Court has relied on in recent cases, I would expect this to be struck down.
- Motambe - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 8:30 pm:
OW nails it.
- OverByDere - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 9:50 pm:
I read these news items and then compose an vicious screed in my mind excoriating people so selfish and childish they think their right to weapons trumps my right to live, and certainly my tranquility and welfare.
I don’t bother, since it has be demonstrated to always fall on deaf ears.