Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Final arguments filed in challenge to Illinois’ assault weapons ban

Posted in:

Illinois

* Background is here if you need it. Center Square…

In their final briefs before an expected ruling, plaintiffs in the challenge to Illinois’ gun and magazine ban argue the Protect Illinois Communities Act should be struck down by a federal district judge.

The consolidated lawsuits in the Southern District of Illinois were filed shortly after Illinois banned the sale and possession of more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities. The Protect Illinois Communities Act was enacted in January 2023.

Preliminary actions, which included a six-day injunction against the law in late April 2023, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied taking the case because it wasn’t on final judgment.

“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a permanent injunction because they have not prevailed on their claims,” one filing from the state says. “If the Court disagrees, however, any injunction it enters must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending review by appellate courts.”

Click here and here for the final briefs.

* From the state’s filing…

Plaintiffs are not entitled to a permanent injunction because they have not prevailed on their claims. If the Court disagrees, however, any injunction it enters must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending review by appellate courts.

A permanent “injunction issues ‘only as necessary to protect against otherwise irremediable harm.’” Therefore, enjoining defendants from enforcing a provision of the Act against a plaintiff who has not challenged that provision, or who lacks standing to challenge it, “would violate the rule requiring courts to tailor injunctive
relief to the scope of the violation found.”

Any injunction must address each plaintiff individually—and may provide only
the specific relief that plaintiff has proven an entitlement to.

In other words, the injunction may enjoin enforcement of only the specific provisions of the Act that the plaintiff has proven are causing an Article III injury. The injunction cannot simply enjoin defendants from enforcing the entirety of the Act against the plaintiffs as a group, irrespective of their standing.

posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Oct 22, 24 @ 11:19 am

Comments

Wow. The second link (final brief) is noteworthy for its crazy talk. Shelby Mustangs are not 4-cylander Mustangs; family lore as justification for owning revolvers, er, AR 15s; and the best, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (Mao Zedong 1965) as justification for allowing citizens to own military grade weapons. I forgot to mention grenades and flares.

If anything, the Maag dude is living up to his growing reputation as being odd.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Oct 22, 24 @ 11:56 am
“If the Court disagrees, however, any injunction it enters must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending review by appellate courts”

The state has a good idea that its argument is a loser. Seeking damage control with the threat of a stay and appellate reversal oozes weakness and may further alienate this judge’s disposition towards the defense.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Oct 22, 24 @ 12:01 pm
@ Donnie Elgin

Actually, the State’s argument is 62 pages long, not one sentence.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Oct 22, 24 @ 12:22 pm
If the oral arguments were any clue, I don’t think there’s much suspense, what this particular judge is gonna rule, at least as to an AR-15 ban. The state is looking to its next court.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Oct 22, 24 @ 12:39 pm
Donnie, that’s just called covering your bases. You throw everything you can at it, give as many reasons as you can why you shouldn’t lose or shouldn’t lose completely.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Oct 22, 24 @ 12:56 pm