Federal Court Upholds Illinois Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’
A Divided U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Illinois’ Ban on “Assault Weapons”
In a highly debated decision on November 3, a U.S. appeals court ruled that Illinois’ new ban on “assault weapons” is likely constitutional under the Second Amendment. The law, signed by Democrat Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker earlier this year, prohibits the buying, selling, and owning of certain semiautomatic guns, including the popular AR-15s. However, this controversial move immediately faced legal challenges from groups and individuals who claimed it was illegal.
According to U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Wood, who wrote for the 2–1 majority, the plaintiffs must prove that the banned weapons are commonly used for self-defense and not primarily designed for military purposes. Judge Wood referred to a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that stated the Second Amendment only protects weapons that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
Under a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, courts must assess whether laws fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. If they do, governments must justify the regulations by demonstrating their consistency with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the nation.
Consequently, the appeals court judges had to determine whether the firearms banned by the Illinois law are covered by the Second Amendment.
“We conclude the answer is no,” stated Judge Wood. “These assault weapons and high-capacity magazines resemble machine guns and military-grade weaponry more than the various firearms commonly used for individual self-defense (or so the legislature believed).”
The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that there are significant differences between AR-15s and M16s, a similar military firearm. However, Judge Wood found their arguments “unconvincing.” She did acknowledge that the M16 can be fully automatic, unlike the AR-15 without modification.
Joining Judge Wood in the majority was U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan.
The ruling came as a response to six consolidated lawsuits challenging the law, with plaintiffs including Law Weapons, Inc., a gun store in Naperville, and Javier Herrera, an emergency room doctor in Chicago.
In previous lower court rulings, some judges sided with the plaintiffs, finding the law violated the Second Amendment based on the 2022 Supreme Court decision. However, others believed the law aligned with historical U.S. firearm restrictions.
In August, the divided Illinois Supreme Court upheld the law, stating it did not violate the Illinois Constitution.
The law, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act, prohibits the purchase, sale, and ownership of semiautomatic rifles and pistols meeting specific conditions, including those with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The only exceptions are for “trained professionals,” such as law enforcement officers, and individuals who owned the firearms before the law’s effective date in January 2024.
Dissent
U.S. District Judge Michael Brennan, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, expressed dissent. He argued that the banned firearms fall under the category of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
Judge Brennan emphasized that the Supreme Court has emphasized the protection of guns “in common use at the time.” He stated that the banned weapons include many of the most commonly-owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, rifles, and magazines.
According to Judge Brennan, Illinois officials must demonstrate that the ban aligns with past regulations. However, he found their examples irrelevant, as they failed to address the significant differences between fully automatic machine guns and the newly banned firearms.
“The government parties have failed to show that the act and ordinances are consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Brennan argued. “History and tradition do not support banning firearms and magazines that countless citizens own, possess, and use for lawful purposes.”
Did the judge refuse Biden’s request to lift ban on contact with social media?
Judge refuses to put hold on order limiting Biden administration contact with social media companies. NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge in Louisiana refused Monday to put a temporary hold on his own order limiting Biden administration officials contacts with social media companies. Ust, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the law. However, the appeals court’s decision now allows the law to be enforced while the litigation continues.
The majority ruling also rejected the argument that the law places an undue burden on the Second Amendment right to self-defense. Judge Wood emphasized that the ban does not prevent citizens from accessing other types of firearms for self-defense purposes. She stated, “The statute does not extinguish the right to self-defense; it just limits the means to that end.” The court acknowledged that while the AR-15 may be an effective self-defense weapon, the state has
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
