State defends gun ban district court ruled unconstitutional
[August 16, 2025]
By Greg Bishop | The Center Square
(The Center Square) − Ahead of oral arguments over Illinois’ gun ban in
the federal appeals court, attorneys for the state filed their final
reply brief.
Part of the state’s argument filed Thursday is that the firearms banned
in 2023 are both dangerous and unusual. They cite that only 0.64% of the
state’s population registered their firearms.
“Relatedly, plaintiffs cite the district court’s estimate that between
14.1 and 18.2 million adults own AR-platform rifles,” the filing says.
“Even if these national numbers were more probative than the
Illinois-specific data, that would amount to only 5% of Americans. In
short, the evidence showed that these firearms are not widely
possessed.”
Todd Vandermyde advocates for the Second Amendment.
“They are inferring that the only people that own these are people who
registered them, not taking into account that people own them and may
have moved them out of the state or just flipped the middle finger to
[Illinois Gov. J.B.] Pritzker,” Vandermyde told The Center Square.
The state argued the banned firearms aren’t necessary for self defense.
“About [large capacity magazines], plaintiffs describe testimony that
having more ammunition available makes a person safer, as well as
anecdotal incidents in which an individual fired more than 10 bullets in
self-defense,” the filing says. “These isolated incidents cannot
undermine the data establishing that civilians use between two and three
bullets on average when firing in self-defense. And even in the
hypothetical situation in which more than 10 shots from a long gun or
more than 15 shots from a handgun might be desired, the Act presents no
problem: it regulates only how many shots can be fired without
reloading, not the total amount of ammunition a person can have.”
[to top of second column]
|
A screenshot of various illustrations as part of Illinois' filing
defending the state's gun and magazine ban - Greg Bishop / The
Center Square
Vandermyde said the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
isn’t just for self-defense.
“If you wanna collect AR-15s from every manufacturer because … it’s
like collecting doorknobs, so be it, that is a perfectly lawful
use,” Vandermyde said. “If you wanna use it for competition
shooting, fine.”
With the record from the district court’s four-day bench trial and
7,000 pages of evidence and testimony, Vandermyde said it’s a
perfect case for the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Because, final judgement, record, you know they’ve gone back and
forth, the whole nine yards,” he said.
Ultimately, Vandermyde said the case is going to the U.S. Supreme
Court. It just depends on when that happens after the appeals court
completes the case.
“Somebody just needs to get up there in front of the court next
month and say ‘we understand that this isn’t the last stop for this
train, so whatever you do, rule, rule fast and let's get on with
it,’” Vandermyde said.
Oral arguments for the case in the appeals court are set for Sept.
22.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
