SPRINGFIELD – Exemptions from Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s gun law favor public employee unions according to Bryan Drew of Benton, who represents gun owners suing to overturn the law.
He connected exemptions to unions in a complaint at White County circuit court alleging violation of equal protection, among other constitutional violations.
“One can’t help but consider their very powerful lobbies were responsible for successfully carving out their members from being subjected to this law,” Drew wrote.
“What legitimate purpose can be gleaned from allowing for example a county jailer to be able to purchase or transfer a .50 caliber rifle at will when the rest of the citizens of the state are prohibited?” he asked.
“It defies common sense and reeks of political patronage, but all that really matters is that it violates equal protection,” Drew added.
The equal protection argument persuaded Circuit Judge Scott Webb, who entered a temporary restraining order for Drew’s clients on Feb. 2.
Pritzker’s law doesn’t apply to peace officers, qualified law enforcement officers, or retired law enforcement officers.
It doesn’t apply to federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies.
It doesn’t apply to wardens, superintendents, and keepers of prisons, penitentiaries, and jails.
It doesn’t apply to active members of the armed services or reserve forces of the United States or Illinois National Guard while they perform official duties.
It doesn’t apply to any company that employs armed security officers at facilities that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates, while they perform official duties.
It doesn’t apply to private security agencies while they perform official duties.
Drew wrote in his White County complaint that, “As the court considers these exceptions, all of which violate equal protections, the ridiculousness of some of them will become apparent.”
“A member of our military is exempt as long as she or he is in the service but must seemingly give up their rights after being discharged,” he wrote.
“However, a retired law enforcement officer can continue to exercise their rights their whole life,” he added.
“One can’t even begin to appreciate these types of distinguishing provisions until considering the possibility that one class of persons might have a better lobbying group than the other,” he continued.
Drew wrote that the Illinois Constitution requires the government to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.
“It does not preclude the state from enacting legislation that draws distinctions between different categories of people, but it does prohibit the government from affording different treatment to persons who have been placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the purpose of the legislation,” he wrote.
Drew claimed that to survive scrutiny in the equal protection context, the means employed by the legislature must be necessary to advance a compelling interest.
He wrote that the statute must be narrowly tailored to the attainment of the legislative goal.
He wrote that a statute incorporating a suspect classification will be upheld only if the legislature employed the least restrictive means consistent with attainment of the goal.
“It defies comprehension as to how defendants could classify the plaintiffs as a category of persons whose individual rights to bear arms must be restrained, but yet carve out a large class of persons who are wholly exempt based on their employment status,” he wrote.
Drew wrote that given the abandonment of legislative process, the record was devoid of any evidence of a public purpose that exemptions furthered.
He added that the court was left to speculate on what that purpose might be.
He explained that a jailer retains his or her rights, “but at the moment he or she is no longer employed in that position, their rights expire. It’s an absolute absurdity.”
At a hearing before Judge Webb in Carmi on Jan. 25, Drew said no one knows what keepers of a jail means.
He asked if it included cooks or persons making $8 an hour with no firearm training.
He said Pritzker appoints prison wardens and the job doesn’t require firearm training.
Webb wrote in his temporary restraining order that the state claimed plaintiffs didn’t demonstrate that they were similarly situated with the exempted class.
“That becomes an almost impossible task because the legislature gave no reasoning as to why they chose to exempt the groups of people they exempted,” Webb wrote.
“Without knowing the basis for the classifications, plaintiffs are left in the dark to determine whether they are similarly situated or not,” he added.
He found speculation suggested that the legislature selected groups based on firearms training, but there was no legislative history or debate for a foundational basis.
“One would think that veterans would be as qualified and trained in firearms safety as active duty military members,” he wrote.
The equal protection argument also persuaded Fifth District appellate judges who affirmed a temporary restraining order granted by Effingham County Judge Joshua Morrison on Jan. 31.
The Illinois Supreme Court is expected to review the Fifth District decision.