In January 2023, Illinois lawmakers passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act, enacting an assault weapons ban in response to a series of mass shootings, including a tragic incident at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park that claimed seven lives.
The law has faced legal challenges in the Southern District of Illinois, where multiple plaintiffs argue that it violates their Second Amendment rights. Over four days of testimony, a central issue arose: whether the firearms restricted by the law are commonly used for lawful purposes, like self-defense, or are military-grade weapons that can be regulated by the state.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling in November 2023, upheld the law, emphasizing a historical distinction between civilian and military weapons. This ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has decided to wait for lower court trials to conclude before hearing the case.
During the trial, plaintiffs presented experts who claimed that AR-style rifles are popular for self-defense and lack military utility compared to fully automatic weapons. Conversely, the state’s experts argued that semiautomatic weapons are more suited to military use than fully automatic ones.
Retired Army Colonel Jason Dempsey testified about his experience in combat, stating he never used fully automatic mode, and suggested that while he owns an AR-style rifle, he supports training for owners rather than a complete ban.
A significant point of legal debate is whether the weapons covered by the Illinois law have historical precedent dating back to the Constitution’s founding, a standard set by the Supreme Court in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In closing arguments, plaintiffs’ attorney Andrew Lothson argued that the law is unconstitutional because all items included are useful for self-defense, while Illinois Attorney General’s office representative Kathryn Hunt Muse contended that the banned assault-style weapons share functional similarities with military rifles like the M4 and M16.
Attorneys have 30 days to submit written briefs and proposed findings to Judge Steven McGlynn, who has not indicated when a ruling might be delivered.
Comments