Not-for-profit organizations like The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America and Guns Save Life are some of the latest to challenge Illinois’ new weapons ban in federal court.
Both organizations filed their separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois late Tuesday afternoon, opposing Public Act 102-1116, also known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans semi-automatic weapons and “high capacity” magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and 15 rounds for handguns. The weapons ban was created when Pritzker signed HB 5471 into law on Jan. 10.
“Almost no other state in the union has ever tried to adopt such an extreme measure - and for good reason, as no less an authority than the Supreme Court has already recognized that semiautomatic rifles ‘traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful,’” wrote Edwardsville attorney Gary Pinter of Swanson Martin & Bell.
There are currently four lawsuits pending in Illinois’ Southern District which challenge the weapons ban.
Previously, a lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of St. Clair County veteran Dane Harrel and a group of gun stores and nonprofit organizations. Also, a suit originally filed in Crawford County by Wood River attorney Thomas Maag was removed to federal court on Jan. 23.
On Jan. 24, Pinter filed a lawsuit on behalf of Hood’s Guns & More, Pro Gun and Indoor Range, National Sports Shooting Foundation Inc., Caleb Barnett, and Brian Norman. The suit was filed against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Director of the Illinois State Police Brendan Kelly.
Barnett, of Sparta, and Norman, of Marion, both legally own semiautomatic firearms and “large capacity” magazines and would buy more “but for HB 5471.”
Also, Waukegan attorney Mark Shaw filed a lawsuit on behalf of Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Guns Save Life, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Piasa Armory, Cumberland County resident Debra Clark, Madison County resident Jasmine Young and Hardin County resident Chris Moore. The suit was filed against Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Raoul and Kelly.
Clark is part owner of a licensed firearms dealer in Toledo, Illinois. Young, of East Alton, participates in local International Defensive Pistol Association shooting events. Moore is suing to allow his wife to use an AR-15 for self-defense in Cave-in-Rock, Illinois, “because she is of shorter stature with a weaker grip and the AR-15 is easier, and thus, safer for her to use.”
Shaw’s complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in order to “protect themselves, their families, and/or their homes with firearms owned and in common use by millions of Americans for self-defense and/or sport, or are lawfully, federally licensed retailers that seek to acquire, maintain, possess, use and/or transfer firearms to such persons for such use.”
Pinter’s complaint seeks “declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Illinois, including defendants Raoul and Kelly, and all of their respective agents and assigns, from enforcing HB 5471 against plaintiffs or any of their members.”
Shaw argues that the “Firearms Ban Act” is an “unconstitutional infringement of the civil rights of law-abiding residents of the State of Illinois.”
“If the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ means anything, it must mean that the government cannot ban the most popular firearms in the country, like the class of firearms known as magazine-fed semi-automatics,” Shaw wrote.
Both lawsuits state that the law bans a list of popular firearms, various parts used for repairing the named firearms, and attachments with specific ergonomic features. The law currently offers exemptions for certain current and former government employees, active and retired law enforcement officers, active military personnel, private security guards, locksmiths and “a handful of presumably, politically-connected individuals and/or ‘professionals’ whose personal safety and/or chosen ‘professions’ are more worthy of protection than are those of average, every day, law abiding residents of the State of Illinois,” Shaw wrote.
They argue that gun laws can withstand constitutional review if they are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm laws.
“Because commonly owned firearms were never outright banned at the founding of this country, or during the 18th and 19th centuries, neither the United States nor Illinois has any historical tradition to support the Firearms Ban Act, and, therefore, the Firearms Ban Act must be stricken from the Illinois Compiled Statutes books,” Shaw wrote in his suit.
Shaw adds that the American experiment may never have begun if the citizens didn’t take up arms against the British Empire’s overreach in seeking to disarm them.
“In other words, free persons exercising their preexisting natural right to ‘keep and bear arms’ had successfully driven back the preeminent superpower of their time,” he wrote.
“When it later came time to establish the Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights, the founders were very clear on the importance of an armed citizenry bearing their own private arms as a bulwark against both foreign invasion and domestic tyranny,” he continued.
Pinter adds in his suit that a firearm that could hold more than 10 rounds without reloading dates back to 1580.
Shaw and Pinter argue that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, which are considered to be firearms “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
The weapons banned in the Firearms Ban Act are widely accepted as lawful possessions, including the ArmaLite AR-15. The suits state that AR-style semiautomatic rifles are the most popular firearms in the country - owned by 24.6 million Americans.
“There are few, if any, points that our historical tradition of firearm regulation is clearer on than the command that the most popular rifles in the country cannot constitutionally be banned,” Shaw wrote.
Pinter adds in his suit that Americans buy more of the most popular semi-automatic rifle each year than the most popular automobile - the Ford F-150 - “and there are more AR-15-style rifles in private hands in America today than subscribers to all daily newspapers nationwide combined.”
Shaw notes that semiautomatic firearms are not “weapons of war,” as they are not used in war. The military instead uses its automatic counterparts like the M16 or M4.
“That these civilian-owned firearms may also have some military utility, like the muskets of the minutemen, does not remove them from Second Amendment protection,” he wrote.
Shaw acknowledges that while semiautomatic weapons have been used in home defense, they have also been used in crime.
“When any firearm is very popular in general, it will also, unfortunately, be used in crime; but, according to the FBI, over 90% of criminals opt to use handguns, not AR-15s or other semi-automatic rifles, when they commit crimes using a firearm,” he wrote.
As for the banned firearm attachments, Shaw argues that none of them “have anything to do with affecting a firearm’s mechanical rate of fire, cartridge’s power, or any other factor linked to the firearm’s potential to be exploited for crime.” Instead, he argues that the parts are used to promote ergonomic comfort, accuracy, and safe handling.
The law does allow Illinois residents who already legally own the prohibited firearms to be “grandfathered in,” Shaw and Pinter argue that the mandatory firearm registration is unconstitutional.
“As history has taught all too often, registration - always and everywhere - eventually leads to effective, if not actual, confiscation, as occurred in the City of Chicago decades ago,” Shaw wrote. “No other constitutional right works in this way.”
Pinter adds that while firearm owners may keep them if they submit to the registration, “they are severely restricted in how they may use them.” They may only possess the banned firearms on private property, at a licensed firing range or shooting competition venue, at a licensed dealer or gunsmith for repair, or while traveling as long as the weapons are unloaded and placed in a case.
Harrel complaint
Wheaton, Ill., attorney David Sigale filed Harrel’s lawsuit on Jan. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of St. Clair County resident Harrel, C4 Gun Store LLC, Marengo Guns Inc., Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. (FPC), and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
It claims the defendants are “responsible for enforcing a statute infringing the right of law-abiding, peaceful citizens to keep and bear commonly possessed firearms and ammunition magazines for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes.”
The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the weapons ban unconstitutional and enjoining the defendants from enforcing it.
“Governor Pritzker and the legislators who voted for this law did this for self-serving political purposes and are not upholding the United States Constitution,” stated Richard Pearson, executive director of the ISRA. “The 2nd Amendment is fundamentally about self-defense, and the 14th Amendment is about not having our rights infringed. This new law makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”
“The real problem is that there are existing gun laws that do not work because they are not enforced,” Pearson added. “We would all be much safer if the police had the resources they need, and there were stronger consequences for the non-law-abiding citizens.”
Plaintiff Harrel is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force and is currently employed as a civil servant for the USAF Air Mobility Command Headquarters in the Operations Directorate. He is a member of ISRA, SAF and FPC.
The suit was filed against Raoul, Kelly, St. Clair County State’s Attorney James Gomric, McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally, Randolph County State’s Attorney Jeremy Walker, St. Clair County Sheriff Richard Watson, Randolph County Sheriff Jarrod Peters and McHenry County Sheriff Robb Tadelman.
Sigale wrote that the local defendants named in the suit have the authority to enforce the state’s “flat prohibition” of the manufacture, sale, and possession of “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines commonly owned by ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
However, the sheriffs named in the lawsuit have all declared opposition to the weapons ban.
Tadelman and Peters issued similar statements on Jan. 11 in opposition to HB 5471, calling it a “clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
“Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official for McHenry County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law abiding individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this Act,” they both wrote.
Watson also expressed disappointment in the passage of HB 5471.
“As the chief law enforcement officer of St. Clair County, I am very concerned and disturbed by the ongoing and escalating violence that occurs throughout our state and country,” he wrote. “I am always supportive of new tools, techniques and laws that assist us in preventing and holding accountable those that wage efforts of harm and violence on others. However, I feel that this new law does not do that. I will continue to advocate on behalf of all St. [Clair] County residents and our dedicated law enforcement officers.”
“I understand that our nation has witnessed frequent tragedies involving gun violence and I am in no way attempting to minimize the impact these events have had,” he added. “However, I do not believe we should limit the protections that have been guaranteed to law-abiding citizens in the United States Constitution. I look forward to working with members of the Illinois Sheriff’s Association and our elected legislators to provide common sense laws to address the many issues we face without limiting protections guaranteed in the constitution. Many of our legislators have already promised there will be challenges to this new law and I will be supportive to any constitutional challenges that may occur.”
The weapons ban prohibits anyone within Illinois from manufacturing, delivering, selling, importing, purchasing or possessing semiautomatic “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines.
Sigale claims the banned weapons are misunderstood and mischaracterized.
“The banned semiautomatic firearms, like all other semiautomatic firearms, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger,” Sigale wrote. “They are not machine guns. What is more, the designation ‘assault weapons’ is a misnomer, ‘developed by anti-gun publicists’ in their crusade against lawful firearm ownership.”
He also argues that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” which grants “responsible Illinoisans” a “fundamental constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear common firearms for defense of self and family and for other lawful pursuits.” He claims the weapons ban denies law-abiding citizens those rights.