Federal judge blocks Illinois assault weapons ban

A federal judge has temporarily blocked an assault weapons ban in Illinois, ruling that multiple plaintiffs who sued alleging that the law violates their Second Amendment rights have a “reasonable likelihood” to succeed in their argument. 

U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn issued a preliminary injunction on Friday against the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed into law in January to ban the sale and distribution of assault-style weapons, high capacity-magazines and switches that convert handguns into assault-style firearms. 

The ruling comes after another federal judge rejected a request to block the law earlier this week.

McGlynn, a Trump appointee, said his ruling is not a final decision on the merits of the case, but he found that the individuals, gun shop, gun range and firearm industry trade association that sued met their burden for an injunction to be issued. 

The ruling was issued in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down a New York law requiring that applicants for concealed carry permits show “proper cause.” The majority ruled that gun control measures need to be consistent with the country’s “historical tradition.” 

McGlynn noted that the assault weapons ban in the Illinois case was passed following the shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Ill., which killed seven and wounded dozens more. But he said the law does not appear to be consistent with the Bruen ruling. 

“Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific? More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no,’” he said in the ruling. 

The state government argued that PICA meets the standard of being consistent with historical tradition because assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were not commonly used at the time that the Second Amendment and 14^th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect. But McGlynn noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all “bearable arms,” including those that did not exist at the time of the country’s founding. 

McGlynn found that the plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable harm” if the ban was not put on pause while court proceedings play out, finding that the individuals would not be able to purchase the banned firearms and the organizations would not be able to make money from selling them. 

He acknowledged that the case is “highly contentious” but reiterated that the ruling is not final, and said nothing in it prevents the state from addressing firearm-related violence.