* Click here for the decision…

#BREAKING Finding that “even the most important personal freedoms have their limits” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the state of Illinois in the pending appeal on the state’s assault weapons ban. More info to come. pic.twitter.com/hExCeyRo8x

— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) November 3, 2023

* Excerpt…

The Second Amendment to the Constitution recognizes an individual right to “keep and bear Arms.” Of that there can be no doubt, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (per curiam); and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). But as we know from long experience with other fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech, the right peaceably to assemble, the right to vote, and the right to free exercise of religion, even the most important personal freedoms have their limits. Government may punish a deliberately false fire alarm; it may condition free assembly on the issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid identification card; and it may punish child abuse even if it is done in the name of religion. The right enshrined in the Second Amendment is no different.

The present cases, which we have consolidated for disposition, relate to the types of “Arms” that are covered by the Second Amendment. This presents a line-drawing problem. Everyone can agree that a personal handgun, used for self-defense, is one of those Arms that law-abiding citizens must be free to “keep and bear.” Everyone can also agree, we hope, that a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy Crockett system, with its 51-pound W54 warhead, can be reserved for the military, even though it is light enough for one person to carry.3 Many weapons, however, lie between these extremes. The State of Illinois, in the legislation that lies at the heart of these cases, has decided to regulate assault weapons and high-capacity magazines—a decision that is valid only if the regulated weapons lie on the military side of that line and thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment. Several municipalities have done the same. The plaintiffs in these cases challenge that conclusion. Using the tools of history and tradition to which the Supreme Court directed us in Heller and Bruen, we conclude that the state and the affected subdivisions have a strong likelihood of success in the pending litigation. We therefore affirm the decisions of the district courts in appeals No. 23-1353 and 23-1793 refusing to enjoin these laws, and we vacate the injunction issued by the district court in appeals No. 23-1825, 23-1826, 23-1827, and 23-1828. […]

We conclude with a few remarks about several additional issues in some of these cases that do not require immediate attention, and a reminder about the limits on our ruling.

First, we briefly comment on Herrera’s challenge to the constitutionality of the registration requirement that implements the grandfather exemption. He regards it as a burden on his Second Amendment rights, and he worries that it may in the future lead to confiscatory acts on the part of the state. If we are correct in our prediction that the state will prevail in its defense of the Act against the Second Amendment arguments, then the registration requirement will be valid as long as it can withstand rational basis review. At this juncture, we see nothing particularly onerous about it, though as with everything we have said, this is a preliminary assessment. Herrera has until the end of 2023 to file the necessary forms, and if he does so, he may retain all of the covered weapons he already owns; the Act will prohibit only his acquisition of additional assault weapons or high-capacity feeding devices. For its own reasons, the dissent agrees with us that the registration requirement should not be enjoined.

Second, in this court none of the parties has developed any coherent argument that would distinguish restrictions on possession, on the one hand, from restrictions on sale or manufacture, on the other. One of the parties in Bevis is a gun store, but the implications of that have yet to be addressed. We thus have no comment on it.

Finally, we have no need to decide whether an alleged Second Amendment violation gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm, and if so, whether any such presumption is rebuttable or ironclad. Given our decision that the plaintiffs have not shown that they have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, we think it best to save this point for another day. We also have no comment on the other two parts of the Winter inquiry: where the balance of equities lies, and what the public interest dictates.

We close with an important reminder. Nothing that we have said here indicates that any state or municipality must enact restrictions on the ownership of assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. Unless preemptive federal legislation requires otherwise, this is an issue for the political process in each jurisdiction. The people of some states may find the arguments in favor of a lack of restrictions to be persuasive; the people of other states may prefer tighter restrictions. As long as those restrictions do not infringe on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear the Arms covered by the Second Amendment, either choice is permissible. In the cases now before us, however, the plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, based on the fact that military weapons lie outside the class of Arms to which the individual right applies.

In Nos. 23-1353 and 23-1793, we AFFIRM the district courts’ orders denying preliminary injunctive relief. In Nos. 23-1825, 23-1826, 23-1827, and 23-1828, we VACATE the district court’s order granting preliminary injunctive relief. We also confirm that the stay we issued in these appeals will remain in effect until our mandate issues.

…Adding… React…

Today, Protect Illinois Communities President Becky Carroll released the following statement in response to 7th Circuit Court ruling upholding the Protect Illinois Communities Act:

“Today’s 7th Circuit Court decision on the Protect Illinois Communities Act is another critical legal affirmation of both the law as well as common sense – assault weapons are designed for use on the battlefield, not on our streets or in our communities. We are grateful for their decision and to the work of AG Raoul in representing the State of Illinois on this matter.”

* Rep. Morgan…

State Rep. Bob Morgan (D-Deerfield), the chief sponsor of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, celebrated this important decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Illinois assault weapons ban that was signed into law on January 10, 2023. The 7th District Court was responding to six consolidated lawsuits challenging the ban.

“This ruling is a huge win for anyone committed to reducing gun violence. With the 7th Circuit upholding the Protect Illinois Communities Act, this common-sense gun reform law continues in full force despite the efforts of the gun lobby,” said Rep. Morgan. “As mass shootings in the U.S. are on a record pace in 2023, this law has already prevented the sales of thousands of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in Illinois, making our state safer. We must renew our calls for a nationwide ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in order to make mass shootings a thing of the past.”

The Protect Illinois Communities (PIC) Act bans the sale of assault weapons, which have been the lethal instruments used in multiple mass shootings, as well as large capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a long gun or more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns. Prior to today’s Seventh Circuit ruling, the Act had already survived multiple constitutional challenges. On May 4, 2023, the Seventh Circuit Court blocked a temporary injunction that a lower court judge in East St. Louis issued on April 28. This most recent defense of the PIC Act’s constitutionality comes on the heels of an Illinois Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban.

On May 17, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court also declined to block the law in Illinois.

Morgan, who is the Chair of the House Firearm Safety & Reform Working Group, is recognized as a legislative champion of gun safety in Illinois and is working with other national leaders to reduce gun deaths. Morgan witnessed 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 July Fourth mass shooting with his wife and children, during which 83 rounds were fired in less than 60 seconds, killing seven and injuring 48 people.

* Gov. Pritzker…

Governor JB Pritzker issued the following statement concerning the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the Protect Illinois Communities Act:

“The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed what gun safety advocates have said from day one—the Protect Illinois Communities Act is a commonsense law that will keep Illinoisans safe. Despite constant attacks by the gun lobby that puts ideology over people’s lives, here in Illinois we have stood up and said ‘no more’ to weapons of war on our streets. This is a victory for the members of the General Assembly who stood alongside families, students and survivors who worked so hard to make this day a reality. Now Congress must act so Illinois is not an island surrounded by states with weak protections.”

* LG Stratton…

Today, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Illinois is on the right side of history when it comes to protecting our communities from the dangers of gun violence by upholding the Protect Illinois Communities Act. Upholding the ban of assault-style weapons, high-capacity magazines, and more, we are continuing on our promise of building safer, stronger communities. I thank Governor Pritzker, the General Assembly and the thousands of advocates who came together to say, “enough is enough.”

There is more work to do, and while we acknowledge the significance of this ruling, may we never forget the countless lives lost and disrupted by senseless gun violence. In Illinois, we will continue to look forward, reinforcing this common-sense law and I hope that Congress will do the same

* AG Raoul…

Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s decision in the consolidated cases challenging the Protect Illinois Communities Act.

“I am pleased with the 7th Circuit’s decision in these critically-important cases, which means my office has now successfully defended the Protect Illinois Communities Act in appeals before the 7th Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court. Assault weapons were intended for military use, and the Protect Illinois Communities Act is a tool to prevent them from being used to cause devastation in our schools, places of worship and recreation spaces. This decision is the result of many hours of work by the staff of the Attorney General’s office, and I thank them for their dedication and service to the people of Illinois.”

* Mayor Johnson…

“I welcome today’s decision by the 7th Circuit Court to uphold the Protect Illinois Communities Act. This landmark legislation is an important step for our communities, providing common-sense gun control measures that have been so desperately needed in our city and throughout the state.

This decisive measure will aid in keeping weapons of war out of our neighborhoods and off our streets, creating safer communities for all.”