Judge Blocks Enforcement of Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

Judge blocks enforcement of Illinois’s ‘assault weapons’ ban

A judge in Illinois has blocked enforcement of the state’s assault weapons ban, ruling that the law was in violation of the Second Amendment.

United States District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled on Friday to suspend the implementation of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, arguing it could be in conflict with two Supreme Court cases. The latest ruling marks another bump in the road the law has experienced since it was signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) in January.

COLORADO CRACKS DOWN ON GUNS AS GOVERNOR SIGNS FOUR NEW REGULATIONS INTO LAW

“The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense,” McGlynn wrote in his order. “PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them.”

McGlynn argued in his ruling that the law would likely be deemed unconstitutional when it goes to trial, and that the plaintiffs involved in the trial, which include gun owners, pro-gun groups, and gun shops, would suffer “irreparable harm” by enforcing the law.

In response to the ruling, Pritzker’s office said it is “confident that as the case continues, this critical public safety law will ultimately be upheld as constitutional,” according to ABC 7.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The assault-style weapons ban, signed into law in January, bans the sale, delivery, and purchase of so-called “assault weapons,” as defined by the bill, which categorizes more than 100 different types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols to be banned. Those who already own the weapons will not have to surrender them to authorities, but they will need to register them.

On March 3, Macon County Judge Rodney Forbes declared the state’s gun ban and registry law unconstitutional. The state’s 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court higher than Forbes’s court, had already upheld a ruling that granted a temporary restraining order on the law, but due to Forbes’s ruling, the restraining order applied to the entire state.