Illinois’ gun ban addresses ‘episodic massacres,’ state argues in
defense of law
Send a link to a friend
[March 03, 2023]
By Greg Bishop | The Center Square
(The Center Square) – In its response to plaintiffs' groups suing to
block Illinois’ gun ban and registry, the state argues the law is
constitutional and restricts dangerous weapons.
Illinois banned the sale of certain semi-automatic guns and magazines on
Jan. 10. The law also sets up a registry of weapons owned by those in
possession of them before the ban.
Gun rights groups and individuals filed state-level and federal-level
legal challenges.
In federal court last week, Southern District of Illinois Judge Stephen
McGlynn consolidated four cases into one and set the response from the
state to a motion for preliminary injunction for Thursday.
Despite McGlynn telling litigants in a status hearing last week he
didn’t want to be “papered to death,” the state filed a 70-plus page
response with 14 exhibits totaling more than 1,500 pages.
The state argues modern firearms were not in common use when the Second
Amendment was ratified in 1788, and the state’s law looks to address
“dramatic technological changes” that created weapons beyond self
defense.
“Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing assault weapons and
large capacity magazines are ‘arms’ protected by the text of the Second
Amendment,” the state said in Thursday’s filing. “Large capacity
magazines are accessories, not ‘arms,’ and they are neither
independently capable of nor necessary for self defense. They augment
the lethality of firearms by reducing the frequency of re-loading in
battle – or during the episodic massacres that now punctuate modern
American life.”
Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde predicts the state’s argument won’t
stand.
“You apply what they want to the First Amendment and the internet,
radio, television, Twitter, all the like don’t obtain First Amendment
protections,” Vandermyde told The Center Square after reviewing the
filing.
Among the stack of pages in the state’s filing are illustrations of
banned firearms and magazines. The judge had previously ordered the
state to provide a list of all banned items.
[to top of second column]
|
Multiple pages of an exhibit in the
state's response to a legal challenge of Illinois' gun ban
Greg Bishop / The Center Square
Also in the filing are pages of historical analysis of previous
weapons restrictions dating back to the 1600s, statistical analysis
of modern mass shootings and more.
“They put in something that’s like a hundred pages of news clippings
about Highland Park,” Vandermyde said. “That’s not really relevant
to the test at hand.”
The argument filed Thursday gives examples of previous lower court
rulings on gun restrictions, and points to eight other states with
similar bans. While noting last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling
referred to as the Bruen decision “clarified the analytical
framework courts should be using” when handling Second Amendment
cases, the state said the ruling “did not say the ultimate
conclusions” of previous decisions were wrong.
With more filings expected before a hearing April 12, Vandermyde
said gun owners need the law blocked. The window to register banned
firearms opens Oct. 1 with the deadline to register being Jan. 1,
2024.
“And don’t forget that in the mid-part of April, all of the other
personal restrictions kick in. One of my carry guns is illegal for
me to carry under Illinois law,” Vandermyde said. “I think getting
an injunction turns us back to a pre-Jan. 9 status. These firearms
have been legal for sale in Illinois for decades.”
Among the state’s 1,500 pages are declarations from consultants
costing taxpayers hundreds of dollars each. One consultant is
charging up to $750 an hour while another charges $1,600 a day for
travel and testimony.
Plaintiffs can reply to the state’s response for a preliminary
injunction by March 23. The state has until March 16 to address the
charge that the ban violates the Second Amendment. Oral arguments in
the consolidated case are set for April 12 in East St. Louis federal
court.
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|