EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. (CN) — Opponents to Illinois' assault weapon and extended ammo magazine bans hit another hurdle on Friday, when a federal judge declined to block one of the bans' key enforcement provisions.
That provision allows people who currently own assault weapons or extended ammo magazines to keep them, so long as the guns were legally bought before Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the bans into law this past January. However, it also requires they register the guns and magazines with state police before Jan. 1, 2024.
Come New Year's Day, anyone found in possession of an unregistered assault weapon or extended ammo magazine — defined as any magazine with a capacity of 15 or more rounds for hand guns and 10 or more rounds for long guns — could face criminal penalties, including felony charges.
The collection of Illinois residents and gun rights advocacy groups challenging the provision claim it violates the 14th Amendment, partly because they believe the state did not give current assault weapon owners enough time to go through the registration process. The Jan. 1 registration deadline itself has been around since state lawmakers enacted the bans in January via the Protect Illinois Communities Act, itself created in response to a July 4, 2022, mass shooting in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park that killed seven and left dozens injured.
But as U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn notes in his opinion, the Illinois State Police didn't file the actual rules outlining the registration process until Sept. 15, and the electronic registration portal for assault weapon owners didn't launch until Oct. 1.
"The plaintiffs argue that the lack of direct notice to firearm owner ID cardholders (and to Illinois citizens, as a whole) coupled with the short time window for compliance renders this process constitutionally insufficient," the Donald Trump appointee wrote.
Opponents of the bans also claim the language of the bans is too murky to pass muster under the 14th Amendment. The Protect Illinois Communities Act lists a number of specific guns that lawmakers considered "assault weapons," including semiautomatic rifles that utilize components like "pistol grips," "thumbhole stocks" and "barrel shrouds." According to the gun advocates, these jargony terms may confuse Illinois assault weapon owners as to what exactly they need to register, and lead them to unintentionally violate the law.
McGlynn rejected both arguments, finding the Illinois State Police had made a reasonable effort in implementing the registration rules and ensuring "Illinois citizens have as much detailed information as possible so that they can make informed decisions about registration."
He also cited the Seventh Circuit, which heard oral arguments on several consolidated suits' challenges to the bans — including these plaintiffs' — this past June and ultimately upheld the bans in early November. In its ruling, the three-judge panel found the registration requirement "no more onerous than many found in history."
More than simply denying the plaintiffs' attempt to block the registration provision, McGlynn granted a motion by the state defendants — including Pritzker and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul — to dismiss the gun advocates 14th Amendment claims outright. It represents a partial about-face for the same conservative judge who in April issued an injunction against the bans as a whole.
An order from the Seventh Circuit stayed that injunction in May, and it was the appellate court's November ruling, the same one McGlynn cited in his opinion Friday, that ultimately vacated it.
The back-and-forth between McGlynn and the Seventh Circuit is only one thread in the complex web of litigation that has surrounded the bans since the beginning of the year, a legal war that illustrates the deep cultural and political divides between liberal Chicagoland in northeast Illinois and more conservative regions in the state's west and south.
Case in point: McGlynn's original decision to enjoin the bans came only three days after U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins, a Joe Biden appointee, declined to enjoin them in a separate but similar case brought by a Chicago-area physician. Both cases were consolidated for oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit.
As the year draws to a close and the registration deadline looms, it is largely the Chicagoland liberals who have triumphed in this particular fight. Besides the Seventh Circuit's favorable ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the bans against a state-level suit in August, and the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to the ban not once but twice, in May and then again just last week.
But the gun advocates' case is not completely hopeless yet. Thought McGlynn shot down their 14th Amendment challenges to the bans' registration provision on Friday, he declined to address their Second Amendment challenge. He closed his opinion by saying the court would attempt to "harmonize" Seventh Circuit decisions with Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The tone of his language implied he was still sympathetic to the gun rights advocates, and to an originalist reading of the Second Amendment.
"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, adding that "Any entreaties to ignore, erode, or infringe the constitutional rights of the people will not gain traction in this court."
Follow @djbyrnes1
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
