Trump-Appointed Judge Deals Major Blow To Gun Reform

A federal judge overturned an Illinois assault weapons ban Friday, contending that the law enacted in response to the 2022 mass shooting at a Highland Park parade violated the Second Amendment in its entirety.

The 168-page ruling, by Donald Trump-appointee Stephen McGlynn, deals a sharp blow to reformers and marks the latest major court ruling to expand gun rights in the wake of the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court’s sweeping reinterpretation of the Second Amendment two years ago.

The decision boosts the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on whether states can restrict the sale of semiautomatic rifles, such as AR-15s and AK-47s, without running afoul of the Constitution.

“While the Court is sympathetic to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence, such tragedies are not an excuse to restrict the rights guaranteed to the Illinois public by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” McGlynn wrote in his opinion.

The Protect Illinois Communities Act, or PICA, restricted the sale or possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, commonly called “assault weapons,” as well as large-capacity magazines after a 21-year-old gunman killed seven people and left 48 injured at a Fourth of July parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park. Several blue states, including California, New York and Maryland, have enacted similar laws that have withstood constitutional scrutiny.

But a series of Supreme Court decisions since 2008 have extended Second Amendment protections beyond the “well-regulated” militias in the Constitution’s text to encompass individuals seeking to defend themselves and now require states to show that any restriction in the name of public safety fit within a historical tradition of firearm regulation dating from some time between the signing of the Bill of Rights in 1791 to the end of the Civil War in 1865.

McGlynn’s ruling found that the arms covered by the Illinois law are purchased for the lawful and protected purpose of self-defense and therefore fall under the Second Amendment’s protection. Though the state of Illinois argued that rifles like AR-15s made poor choices for self-defense compared to handguns, McGlynn ruled that several of its features — including the ease of shooting a light-kicking gun and the ability to easily attach optics and pistol grips — made it ideal for the purpose, especially for smaller or less-strong people.

“In a self-defense scenario, every second matters and this Court will not fault individuals who are not able-bodied for choosing weapons that enable them to more carefully defend themselves and their families,” McGlynn wrote.

The ruling contemplates a multitude of self-defense scenarios that the modern American may face, such as multiple attackers invading the home of the elderly or infirm who must defend children.

McGlynn cites the story of David and Goliath to highlight the point that some people may need to shoot rifles from a distance to neutralize an attacker.

“David selected an arm that allowed him to fire a projectile from a safe distance to impose lethal force on his opponent before the giant closed within an adequate distance to slay David with his sword,” McGlynn wrote.

The judge also noted that, in a movie, Indiana Jones shot a large man with a pistol because he couldn’t reach him with his sword.

“Considering the above discussion, it is clear that an individual’s choice of arms is a critical facet of the concept of self defense,” McGlynn wrote, after the Indiana Jones analysis.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups challenging the Illinois law, applauded the decision.

“We are gratified that the Court properly found that these bans violate the constitutionally protected rights of Illinois residents and visitors,” FPC President Brandon McCombs wrote in a statement. “We will continue to fight forward until we eliminate every unconstitutional ban like this throughout the country.”

Opponents planned to appeal the case.

“These weapons and accessories of war have absolutely no place on our streets or in the hands of civilians,” Bill Taylor, deputy director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law, wrote in a statement. “Not only are laws prohibiting them constitutional, they are effective — and they save lives. We look forward to supporting Illinois in appealing this extreme and unfounded decision to the Seventh Circuit.”

The case could have major repercussions.

Groups that favor expanding gun rights have repeatedly challenged assault weapon bans without success. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have written that they want to examine the question of whether the Second Amendment confers protection on an individual’s right to access weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s.

But most legal observers agree that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up such a case unless two separate federal appeals courts reach opposing conclusions.

That hasn’t happened yet largely because assault weapon bans have mostly been enacted by states in more liberal circuits with a higher likelihood of upholding such laws. States in more conservative circuits are less likely to ban assault weapons in the first place.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Illinois, is somewhere in the middle of the liberal-conservative spectrum.