Prairie State Wire

The Illinois State Rifle Association has submitted a response brief in the legal challenge against Illinois' "assault weapons" ban. 

The case, Harrel et al v Raoul et al, argues that the ban of over 170 commonly owned firearms and accessories, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), is unconstitutional and restricts individuals' right to self-defense.

“The Illinois law bans ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’, and is known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA),” ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson said in a press release. “Our case, Harrel et al v Raoul et al, has been combined with other cases. As Distinct Judge McGlynn noted, ‘A constitutional right is at stake. Some plaintiffs cannot purchase their firearm of choice, nor can they exercise their right to self-defense in the manner they choose. They are bound by the state’s limitations.’ This law is clearly unconstitutional.”

The Illinois State Rifle Association addressed the issue at hand in its latest brief.

“As the district court correctly recognized, slapping the label ‘assault weapon’ on firearms owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense does not take them outside the Second Amendment’s protection,” Illinois State Rifle Association said in its brief. “Nor does dubbing standard magazines 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' change the fact that tens of millions of Americans own hundreds of millions of them as integral components of firearms they keep and bear for self-defense. Simply put, the firearms and feeding devices Illinois has banned are not just in common use; they are ubiquitous. Under a straightforward application of Bruen, that puts HB5471 profoundly out of step with our Nation’s history of regulating firearms. The district court was thus eminently correct to recognize Illinois’ grave overstep and enjoin HB5471."

Pro-Second Amendment groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), are fighting against Illinois' "Protect Illinois Communities Act" assault weapons ban. The SAF, as ISRA did, has filed a brief supporting the district court's temporary restraining order (TRO) against the ban and are urging the court to make the TRO permanent. The groups argue that the ban infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens and provide evidence that the banned firearms are commonly owned, primarily used for self-defense, and have minimal involvement in criminal incidents. They also emphasize that criminals would still be able to obtain such firearms despite the ban, The New American reported. The recent Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen adds momentum to the pro-gun owner's side in this legal battle.

Firearms Policy Coalition also has filed a response brief in the Seventh Circuit for its lawsuit challenging the "Protect Illinois Communities Act” that resulted in a preliminary injunction. The brief argues that the banned firearms and feeding devices are commonly used and protected by the Second Amendment, emphasizing the district court's correct decision to enjoin the act. FPC, along with the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, are seeking to defend constitutional rights and secure the affirmation of the preliminary injunction.