EAST ST. LOUIS - U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ended what he called preliminary wrangling over the state's controversial weapon law, or the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), so he can decide whether it violates a constitutional right to bear arms.
McGlynn denied an injunction against registration of parts and attachments on Dec. 22, finding it would likely lead to more confusion than clarity.
“It may also create further delays in this litigation when the constitutional rights of the citizens demand an expeditious resolution on the merits,” he wrote.
McGlynn also declined to issue an injunction under the Second Amendment.
In a declaration of principles that will guide his inquiry, he wrote, “Government exists to serve us, not lord over us.”
“Any entreaties to ignore, erode, or infringe the constitutional rights of the people will not gain traction in this court.
“Neither the legislative branch, the executive branch, nor the judicial branch may change the fundamental relationship between citizens and government.
“The Constitution places limits on government’s power while guaranteeing freedom and liberty to the People.
“The Second Amendment guarantees are fundamental and belong to the citizens.
“The Second Amendment acknowledges a right of the people, not a license to be issued or denied by the government as it sees fit,” McGlynn wrote.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the law on Jan. 13, 2022. It went into effect Monday under emergency rules.
PICA identifies specific guns, parts, and attachments that citizens can’t possess or buy.
It provides misdemeanor and felony prosecution for those who knowingly possess prohibited accessories or unregistered firearms.
A grandfather clause allows those who possessed certain firearms when Pritzker signed the law to keep them if they transmit an affidavit, pay a fee, and comply with restrictions.
The law set an effective date of Jan. 1 and required holders of firearm owners identification (FOID) cards to register any weapons on the state’s list by Oct. 1.
The law left thorny questions of rule and regulation in the hands of state police, who proposed emergency rules in September.
The legislature’s joint committee on administrative rules (JCAR) adopted the rules, and the registration deadline was set to Jan. 1.
State police proposed more revisions in December, but the committee took no action.
As the New Year approached, gun owners - and potential felons under the registration law - waited for the state to set the law straight.
McGlynn found 8,143 of 2,415,481 FOID card holders submitted affidavits, which equals about one among 300 or 0.3%.
He found the level of compliance would be discernible within days and would likely be highly relevant to review of the merits.
He set forth reasons for skipping lesser disputes and reaching the merits.
McGlynn found the emergency rules weren’t unconstitutionally vague.
“Rather, they are clear in what they prohibit, serious issues with the Second Amendment aside," he wrote.
McGlynn found the state sufficiently notified owners of the emergency rules after the state police issued a press release, and the joint committee published the rules.
He found state police provided means to comment online and conducted three public hearings in November, with one in Caseyville.
An individual can’t apply for a firearm card without an electronic account, and state police sent an alert to all accounts.
The plaintiffs challenged registration of parts and attachments after Seventh Circuit appellate judges ruled that the state could register firearms.
McGlynn found their challenges were edge questions in a statute focused on defined weapons.
He concluded that the Seventh Circuit clearly discouraged any further preliminary determinations about the outcome of challenges.
They indicated that Second Amendment challenges often require more evidence than is presented in early phases of litigation.
McGlynn wrote that the appellate court saw nothing particularly onerous about registration, and they added that this was a preliminary assessment.