Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Gun rights advocates want full appellate court to re-hear assault weapons ban case

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a few days ago…

Today the Illinois State Rifle Association, along with many other groups, filed an En Banc appeal of the recent decision by the US 7th Circuit to deny an injunction against Illinois’ “Assault Weapons” ban.

“The ISRA fought this unconstitutional ban on common firearms at the Statehouse and promised to see Governor Pritzker in court when it passed. Today’s appeal is the next step on the road to a likely hearing in front of the US Supreme Court. The ISRA remains committed to standing beside our fellow 2nd Amendment Defenders in Illinois against this law and we will fight all the way to the Supreme Court” – Richard Pearson, Executive Director, ISRA

The appeal was filed to have the entire US 7th Circuit Court to hear the original petition for relief on the basis that the 2-1 panel decision conflicts with existing US Supreme Court precedent set forth in the Bruen decision, and conflicts with the recent US 9th Circuit Decision in Teter v Lopez. That decision further strengthened the argument against the banning of firearms in common use under the schemes used by Governor Pritzker and the Illinois General Assembly.

The petition is here.

* Yesterday…

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an en banc petition with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in its lawsuit challenging the Illinois “assault weapon” and magazine bans. The petition comes after a 3-judge panel reversed the preliminary injunction FPC secured at the district court. The petition in Harrel v. Raoul case, along with other case documents, can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“Bruen makes crystal clear why [Illinois’] ban is unconstitutional, as firearms and their feeding devices are plainly ‘arms’ no matter what features they possess, and the arms Illinois has banned are among the most common arms in possession today,” argues the petition. “Yet rather than meaningfully engage with the textual and historical analysis Bruen laid out, the panel majority embraced the remarkable proposition that Illinois’ ban does not even implicate the Second Amendment, on the theory that none of the newly outlawed rifles, pistols, shotguns, and feeding devices are ‘arms’ at all.”

“This case is a prime candidate for review of the entirety of the Seventh Circuit given its clear departure from the Supreme Court’s unqualified command and its misunderstanding of basic firearm operation,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and counsel for FPC. “The arms at issue, both the firearms and magazines, are constitutionally protected and cannot be banned. The people of Illinois have a right to possess them, just as do all peaceable people around the country.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 10:30 am

Comments

The phrase “gun rights” makes me cringe. Guns have rights?

Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 10:50 am
By whatever means, this case has always been bound for the U.S. Supreme Court. Time will tell.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 10:59 am
Sure wish these ISRA guys had enough $$ to buy a corvette - that’d save the courts a ton of time.

Comment by We’ll See Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:25 am
==The phrase “gun rights” makes me cringe. Guns have rights?==

More rights than people according to the gun nuts.

Comment by Google Is Your Friend Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:26 am
Friendly - Does the phrase “Gun Violence” make you cringe as well? Guns commit violence?

Comment by Chicagoan Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:26 am
It makes a kind of sense, the Order denying the injunction was illogical and outside the scope of Heller and Bruen. SCOTUS is also unlikely to act until the 7th has had it’s say for better or worse. I doubt the enbanc will change things but they may at least attempt to come up with a more logical excuse to argue it isn’t unconstitutional.

Comment by Mason Born Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:35 am
As far as I’m concerned if you oppose restrictions on magazine capacity you support mass shooters.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:37 am
The 7th’s 3-judge ruling also ignored SCOTUS overturning a Maryland rifle ban, and sending the case it back to the lower court to rule in light of Bruen.

Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:38 am
===As far as I’m concerned if you oppose restrictions on magazine capacity you support mass shooters.===

Agree 100 percent. Same with bans on semi-automatic rifles in general, in fact.

Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:46 am
I’m not sure if this filing is going to accomplish anything except allow the gun lawyers to bill more hours. David Sigale was the local counsel with Alan Gura for the Otis McDonald case. He doesn’t impress me. Last time I spoke with Sigale about NRA backstabbing his client Otis with the Duty to Inform in the concealed carry bill, he didn’t seem too upset about it. 2nd Amendment cases have become a boutique niche for some lawyers to make a lot of money.

Comment by Elmer Keith Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 11:47 am
=It makes a kind of sense, the Order denying the injunction was illogical and outside the scope of Heller and Bruen.=

Of course Buen and Heller ignored the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. Talk about illogical. The rulings ignored the entire first half of the amendment, like the words were not even written by the founding fathers.

The court also added a new test with regard to historical test… “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition.” Yet, they applied “in common use” only to the last 20 or 30 years rather than the same period that Thomas applied to regulation.

Talk about illogical and selective.

If you apply the full text of the 2nd Amendment, the Illinois statute is perfectly constitutional.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:01 pm
==The arms at issue, both the firearms and magazines, are constitutionally protected and cannot be banned.==

And yet they WERE banned from 1994 to 2004. How do you explain that?

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:10 pm
Why do so many Americans want to use a firearm to kill innocent people?…is the actual relevant question.

Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:19 pm
JS Mill

WE shall have to Agree to Disagree on that.

What isn’t in dispute is that Heller and Bruen are the law of the land and Courts subordinate to SCOTUS have to use those rulings to determine constitutionality of laws. The argument Easterbook and Wood used to avoid applying the precedent is illogical and incredibly unlikely to work at SCOTUS.

Comment by Mason Born Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:27 pm
The number of bullets indicates the number of (mis)perceived enemies?

Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:31 pm
A guess State’s Rights and local control is only when it is convenient.

Comment by low level Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:40 pm
Still have never seen a gun miraculously kill anyone by itself. It’s an object that can only work when manipulated by a person. Just like I’ve never seen a hammer swing by itself.

Comment by Lowdrag Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:43 pm
“Heller and Bruen are the law of the land” until we get sane justices who will read the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. Bruen’s farcical so-called historically based opinion is so absurd that the court will have to revise it.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:48 pm
“As far as I’m concerned if you oppose restrictions on magazine capacity you support mass shooters.”

…and that is exactly the kind of slippery-slope, bad-faith argument that has driven this issue into a place where no middle ground can exist.

Comment by sulla Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:52 pm
- It’s an object that can only work when manipulated by a person. -

OK…problem solved.

Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:54 pm
=== …and that is exactly the kind of slippery-slope, bad-faith argument that has driven this issue into a place where no middle ground can exist.===

Exactly right

Comment by Southern Dude Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:57 pm
=I’ve never seen a hammer swing by itself.=

The US stands alone in the number of murders caused by mass shootings. Can’t speak to mass hammerings.

Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 12:58 pm
==Still have never seen a gun miraculously kill anyone by itself==

Yes but it allows you to kill more people in less time as opposed to if you only had a knife.

Comment by low level Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 1:10 pm
Right wing judges have already shown that they will throw out any historical analysis that doesn’t match their preferred policy outcome anyway. We’ve seen this in other gun cases that are being litigated post Bruen.

Everything that happens in lower courts is a lot of useless noise because the SCOTUS right wing majority will just say “oh no, we didn’t mean those historical analogues…”

Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 1:14 pm
lol at the number of people triggered by the headline.

Get it?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 1:15 pm
- It’s an object that can only work when manipulated by a person. -

Is that you, Captain Obvious?

Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 1:25 pm
Next the gun enthusiasts will buy boatloads of HIMARS and ATACMS so that they become “common firearms.”

Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 1:34 pm
Rich, I must recoil at you puns. 😉

Comment by Lurker Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 1:47 pm
I get the distinct impression that a lot of readers here do not like guns, and don’t like that others exercise their right to own them.

PICA is unconstitutional and will fall.

Outside of Bruen and the “common use” bandied about lately, almost any firearm, including all the ones banned by PICA, meets the “useful by a well regulated militia” test of US v Miller (1939).

I wish to thank all the anti-gunners in advance for the next SCOTUS ruling.

Comment by We've never had one before Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 2:03 pm
=WE shall have to Agree to Disagree on that.=

No, we will not. There is not one single thing that I presented that is anything other than factual.

Facts exist, you can ignore the but that does not negate the actual truth. In this case two truths.

Also, if “in common use” is so important why not apply that to things like drugs?

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 2:31 pm
=I wish to thank all the anti-gunners in advance for the next SCOTUS ruling.=

So just tell us tghat nuance is lost on you.

Just like we have speed limits because doing 120mph in a school zone is a bad idea, we have limits on weapons. We have had them since 1934 and the National Fire Arms Act. And the same folks who want no limits on the 2nd Amendment want many limits on the 1st Amendment.

Calling people who want reasonable limitations gun grabbers makes it easier for low information people.

For the record, as I have stated here many times, I have my CCL, am an avid hunter, and own many weapons. I just don’t see the need to play dress up army man.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 2:36 pm
=I get the distinct impression that a lot of readers here do not like guns=

Mass shootings and the weapons used in them are really unpopular. Go figure.

Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 2:38 pm
==well regulated militia==

Is Zackey Rahimi, who fired his gun in the air after his credit card was declined at Whataburger, a member of this militia?

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 2:41 pm
“… “useful by a well regulated militia” … .”

WHAT militia? The Militia Act of 1903 subsumed the Militia into the National Guard, in part due problems with militia performance in the Spanish American War. The Second Militia Act of 1792 provided for conscription of “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen” between 18 and 45, who had to provide their own musket, bayonet, and supplies including ammunition.

The National Guard does not conscript, and supplies all necessary equipment, including weapon and ammunition.

Again, WHAT Militia?

[Sarcasm font on] One of the militia exemptions in the cited Act? Members of Congress.

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 2:54 pm
= The Militia Act of 1903 subsumed the Militia into the National Guard, in part due problems with militia performance in the Spanish American War.=

Sounds like you already found your answer. Sounds like each state can make their own determination, just like they did in the days with militias.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 3:14 pm
=I get the distinct impression that a lot of readers here do not like guns, and don’t like that others exercise their right to own them.==

I don’t have a problem with them. What I don’t like is the attitude that anyrging goes. What is wrong with a limit on magazine size? Why does someone need to be able to purchase something can hold for example 50 rounds? If you can’t even agree on that point then yeah I guess I hate those that refuse to compromise on something as common sense as that

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 3:36 pm
Sorry. That was me above

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Nov 21, 23 @ 3:36 pm