Gun shops, owners and advocates stipulated that they seek no more than $1 in monetary awards in their constitutional challenges to the so-called “assault weapons” ban, or the Protecting Illinois Communities Act (PICA).
A joint response and stipulation regarding money damage claims was filed March 8 by the plaintiffs in four consolidated gun ban challenges pending in U.S. District Judge Stephen McGLynn’s court in the Southern District of Illinois. They are suing Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly.
They filed their stipulation in response to the court’s inquiry “whether the amount to award in money damages is a question that is to be decided by a jury, should the plaintiffs’ challenge to PICA be successful in whole or in part.”
The Harrel, Langley, and FFL plaintiffs confirmed that they sued the state defendants in their official capacities only and are not seeking any money damages. The FFL plaintiffs had previously asserted money damages claims against the defendants, which have been withdrawn.
The Barnett plaintiffs confirm that they sued the defendants in both their official and individual capacities. They are seeking nominal damages in the amount of $1 against the defendants in their individual capacities.
“There is no statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial on the Barnett plaintiffs’ nominal damages claim in the amount of $1,” the stipulation states.
McGlynn plans to hold a status conference in April 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.
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 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?”