EAST ST. LOUIS – Brothers Thomas Maag and Peter Maag of Wood River claim an expert for the state validated their point that the vagueness of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s gun law violates the Constitution.
“It is not every day that a hired expert for the other side proves a litigant’s case,” they wrote in a brief filed June 27.
They claimed expert James Yurgealitis “is either ignorant on the topic on which he opines, or he has made objectively false statements.”
The Maags represent Jeremy Langley, Matthew Wilson, and Timothy Jones, three of many plaintiffs in constitutional challenges that District Judge Stephen McGlynn consolidated.
McGlynn enjoined enforcement of the law in April.
Attorney general Kwame Raoul appealed.
The appeal froze proceedings on the issues McGlynn decided, but in May the Maags raised the narrower issue of vagueness.
They claimed neither legislators nor Yurgealitis distinguished rifles from pistols.
The law limits a handgun magazine to 15 rounds and a rifle magazine to 10 rounds.
“If it is impossible to differentiate between a rifle and a pistol magazine, then the ban on differing capacities is unconstitutionally vague,” they wrote.
The Maags also challenged inclusion of copycat weapons in the definition of assault weapon.
On June 20, Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wells responded that Langley, Wilson, and Jones stood alone among plaintiffs because their claim was lacking in merit.
He claimed Illinois made a policy choice to be more permissive for handguns than long guns.
“Other jurisdictions employ an across the board limit for magazines of any type,” he wrote.
“The mere existence of a small number of interchangeable magazines does not leave the public hopelessly incapable of discerning what the Act requires,” he added.
“Ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited when selling and purchasing magazines for their firearms,” he continued
Wells claimed McGlynn couldn’t speculate about hypothetical and imaginary cases.
He attached Yurgealitis’s affidavit.
Maag and Maag replied that Yurgealitis stated it was rare for rifles and handguns to share magazines and no rifles used magazines on his list of handguns.
They attached an affidavit and exhibits of plaintiff Wilson stating, “The fact is that for nearly every popular semi automatic handgun there is a rifle that uses the same magazine.”
They presented three examples and wrote that the high priced expert couldn’t tell whether a given magazine would for a handgun, a rifle or both.
“Despite hand picking certain firearms to prove his employer’s point, he is demonstrably objectively wrong and has proven one of the plaintiffs’ points,” they wrote.
Maag and Maag claimed a real expert would know their examples off the tops of their heads.
They claimed it was the state’s duty to correct Yurgealitis’s erroneous representations, “perhaps by simply withdrawing his false claims and affidavit.”
They added that Yurgealitis alleged the rarity of persons owning a Beretta M92/M9 series pistol and a Beretta CX4 rifle.
“In the matter of the three plaintiffs herein, each of them owns an M92 style pistol and a CX4 rifle,” they wrote.
“This is not a hypothetical situation,” they added.
Maag and Maag claimed the state didn’t even offer half a definition of AR Type or AK Type weapons.
“Had the state simply stopped at a features test, then it is likely that this vagueness challenge would not be so strong,” they wrote.
“Instead the state went for the broadest ban it could think of, even if it could not define it,” they added.
They asked if firearms that Wilson showed in his affidavit were banned or not.
“Nobody reading the statute can truly know,” they wrote.