The case Piasa Armory vs. Kwame Raoul out of Madison County challenges the Illinois Firearm Industry Responsibility Act. But that’s not what the Illinois Supreme Court heard about Wednesday. The lawsuit included a challenge to a recently enacted measure to limit where the lawsuit could be heard to Sangamon County.

The circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the venue limiting law, concluding that the venue statute violates the due-process rights of those not residing in or injured in Sangamon and/or Cook Counties. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Deputy Solicitor General Alex Hemmer told the Illinois Supreme Court Wednesday that judges in Sangamon and Cook counties have more experience with such cases. Justice David Overstreet pressed the issue.

“A judge in Sangamon County or Cook County instead of one of the judges that citizens of one of these circuits have elected,” Overstreet said. “Why is that not unreasonable, why is that not blatant forum shopping?”

Highlights from oral arguments in the Illinois Supreme Court case Piasa Armory v. Kwame Raoul featuring Deputy Solicitor General Alex Hemmer, Justices David Overstreet, Elizabeth Rochford and Mary K. Obrien, and Piasa Armory attorney Thomas Maag.BlueRoomStream

Representing Piasa Armory, attorney Thomas Maag said the law he’s challenging doesn’t deal with administrative rulings being appealed in specific counties.

“And I see that as substantially different than what was being done here in that we’re limiting the trial court to only two counties,” Maag said Wednesday.

Alex Hemmer said the various lawsuits filed during Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s COVID-19 mandates closing schools and limiting economic activity were one of the reasons the legislature passed the law.

“This is about trying to, as the General Assembly explained, consolidate and centralize and make more efficient constitutional litigation,” Hemmer said.

Several justices posited arguments discussed by the state that technology allows proceedings remotely. Maag said remote status conferences make sense. But not for substantive hearings.

“In my personal experience … nothing is better than just being there, handing the witness the document, there’s no argument to flip through the computer, having technical problems,” Maag said.

The justices took the case under advisement and could rule in the months ahead.