* I’m assuming this will be immediately appealed since ten days ago the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals denied an injunction pending appeal of a case that went the opposite way up north. From Southern District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn…

(C)an [the Illinois Protect Illinois Communities Act] be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is “likely no.” The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted. […]

Assuming arguendo that there is no presumption of harm for an alleged violation of the Second Amendment, Plaintiffs still satisfy this element. For example, Barnett and Norman are no longer able to purchase any firearm, attachment, device, magazine, or other item banned by PICA, while Hoods and Pro Gun are now prohibited from selling said any item banned by PICA. These harms are irreparable and in direct violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense. There is no question that the right to armed self-defense is limited by PICA, and in some cases, may be prohibited altogether. It is true that not all items are banned under PICA; however, if a lawful citizen only possesses items that are banned under PICA, he or she would have to purchase a non-banned firearm in order to legally defend oneself under the Second Amendment. […]

Although Defendants challenged the veracity of Plaintiffs’ evidence, they were unable to produce evidence showing that modern sporting rifles are both dangerous and unusual. Consequently, Defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the “arms” banned by PICA are “dangerous and unusual” and thus not protected by the Second Amendment. See Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2128 (emphasis added). […]

Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. They have shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11), (14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court can address the merits.

The Court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions. Again, the Court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the cases. Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence. There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously. Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes.

Stay tuned for react.

…Adding… Speaking of the Bevis case…

A Naperville gun shop owner is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block Illinois’ assault weapon ban while he fights the law in federal court.

Robert Bevis is seeking an emergency junction, one week after a federal appeals court in Chicago turned down his request.

“This is an exceedingly simple case,” Bevis argues in his appeal, filed on Wednesday. “The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home.”

…Adding… Press release…

State Rep. Bob Morgan (D-Deerfield), the chief sponsor of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (“HB5471”), responded to the decision from U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois in East St. Louis, after McGlynn issued an injunction against the Illinois assault weapons ban that was signed into law on January 10, 2023. The decision comes after U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins, and U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall, both out of the Northern District of Illinois, separately rejected similar requests for an injunction.

“This news is disappointing, but we remain encouraged as we’ve already had two federal judges in Illinois refuse to block the law,” said Rep. Morgan. “Since its enactment, this law has already prevented the sales of thousands of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in Illinois, making Illinois communities safer for families. This is necessary and life-saving legislation, and we feel confident we will ultimately prevail in a higher court.”

This conflict in rulings will now move the issue to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. This injunction does not impact the prohibition on rapid-fire devices, the interstate firearm trafficking strike force, or extension of the duration of a firearm restraining order established under HB5471.

Rep. Morgan serves as Chair of the Illinois House Firearm Safety Reform Working Group. He has seen firsthand the devastating effects that gun violence can have on a community. Highland Park, IL is a part of his 58th District, and he was present at the tragic Fourth of July mass shooting in 2022 during which 83 rounds were fired in less than 60 seconds, killing seven and injuring 48 people.

* G-PAC…

Today, the Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC) released the following statement from John Schmidt, a former U.S. Associate Attorney General and member of the Executive Board of G-PAC, in response to Southern District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn’s decision to enjoin the state from enforcing the Illinois’ assault weapons ban.

“Given comments he made from the bench at the hearing in East St. Louis on April 12, Judge McGlynn’s decision to rule against the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines is not surprising. But it is still disappointing. It is directly contrary to the prior decisions of two Chicago federal judges, Judge Virginia Kendall and Judge Lindsay Jenkins, both of whom found the new statute “constitutionally sound” and declined relief. We believe Judges Kendall and Judge Jenkins are right, and Judge McGlynn is wrong.

“Judge Kendall’s decision is already on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and that Court also declined to grant any immediate relief. We have confidence that the Attorney General representing the State of Illinois will take all possible actions to try to assure that the statute continues to remain in effect while litigation proceeds.”

*** UPDATE *** Attorney General Raoul has filed a motion with the Southern District to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal…

The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order is inconsistent with two prior rulings from two different judges in the Northern District of Illinois rejecting requests to preliminarily enjoin the Act on materially indistinguishable Second Amendment claims. See Bevis v. Naperville, No. 22- cv-4775, Dkt. 63, 2023 WL 2077392 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2023); Herrera v. Raoul, No. 23-cv-532, Dkt. 75, 2023 WL 3074799 (N.D. Ill. April 26, 2023). The Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order neither mentions nor analyzes why those two rulings on the same Act and the same type of Second Amendment claims were erroneous. They were not. The Seventh Circuit has also had the opportunity to enjoin the Act while considering the Bevis appeal, and it denied that request on April 18, 2023. Bevis v. Naperville, No. 23-1353, Dkt. 51 (7th Cir.) (denying motion for injunction pending appeal).

In order to avoid inconsistency and confusion—particularly given that refusing to stay the Preliminary Injunction Order would have the practical effect of overriding the Seventh Circuit’s contrary order in Bevis—this Court should stay its Preliminary Injunction Order while the Seventh Circuit considers the merits of the State Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. Furthermore, the Court should stay its Preliminary Injunction Order because: the Act does not violate the Second Amendment and Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims will ultimately fail on the merits; enjoining the Act inflicts irreparable harm on the public by allowing the weapons preferred by mass murderers to continue to proliferate; and the public interest favors allowing the Act’s restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity magazines to remain in effect.

I doubt it’ll work, but there you go.