U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn set a discovery schedule with plans to select a trial month by mid-April in four consolidated constitutional challenges to the so-called “assault weapons” ban.
In an order filed Feb. 29, McGlynn wrote that the April status conference will be held to “assess the progress of discovery and gauge the amount of cooperation among the parties in preparing this matter for a hearing on the merits.”
McGlynn was directed by the Seventh Circuit Appellate Court to develop a record on the weapons at issue after the appellate court denied preliminary injunction to the firearm regulations. He has proceeded at an expedited pace.
In his order, McGlynn outlined the discovery calendar for the parties. The plaintiffs consist of gun owners, gun shops and gun advocates, and the state defendants include Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly.
McGlynn first ordered the parties to submit their disclosures and written discovery by March 13.
The parties were also directed to submit the identities of their affirmative experts and their subject matter expertise by March 27.
They were ordered to respond to requests for written discovery by April 3. A targeted trial month and final pretrial conference will be discussed at the April status conference.
As part of the discovery the parties were ordered to complete, McGlynn gave them a list of questions about the weapons the state banned in the Protecting Illinois Communities Act (PICA).
The complete list of questions include:
1. Is the item an “Arm” as defined in Supreme Court decisions Heller and Bruen?
2. Is the item an “Arm” as defined in the Seventh Circuit’s Bevis decision?
3. Is there a rational basis for a civilian to select a particular “Arm” for use in self defense in the home?
4. Is there a rational basis for a civilian to select a particular item for use in self defense outside the home?
5. Is there a rational basis for a civilian to select a particular item for use in self defense to repel a riot or large-scale attack?
6. Is the item an “Arm” that may be used to resist tyranny?
7. Is the item exclusively or predominantly useful in military or law enforcement settings?
8. Is the item specifically designated by the United States military as a weapon to be acquired by the United States military and issued to its troops?
9. Does the item meet all of the specifications required by the United States military to qualify for issue as a rifle or pistol to be deployed with United States troops?
10. Is the weapon materially different from an M16, M4, or machine gun?
11. Is the firing rate of semi automatic weapons banned by the law materially different from the firing rate of the M16, M4, or fully automatic machine guns?
12. Is the item a dual use Arm that may be used in both military and civilian settings?
13. Is the item principally possessed and used for unlawful purposes?
14. Is the item in common use?
15. Is the item “dangerous and unusual?”