A federal court has put a stay on Illinois’ assault weapons prohibition for the time being.
On Friday, Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) implementation was temporarily stayed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the Southern District of Illinois. McGlynn argued that the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen decisions, as well as the Second Amendment, render the legislation unconstitutional.
In an effort to avoid or lessen the impact of criminal acts perpetrated by a tiny minority, some individuals are questioning whether or not it is acceptable to violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Authored by McGlynn. In particular, can the Second Amendment and Bruen be protected under PICA? The issue before the Court must be resolved. The obvious conclusion at this point is “probably not.”
Claiming that “in Bruen and Heller, the Supreme Court said that people have a constitutional right to own and carry guns and can use them for self-defense,” PICA appears to have been drafted in defiance of the rigorous standards set forth by Bruen and Heller. A state legislature, no matter how well-meaning, intelligent, or arrogant its members, cannot approve a bill that violates the rights guaranteed to its citizens by the Constitution. If a law is passed that infringes people’s fundamental freedoms, it won’t matter how popular it is in the country.
First, McGlynn violated the rule prohibiting “non-essential accessories” such threaded barrels, barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, arm braces, and 15-round pistol magazines. The state argued that the components in question do not constitute “arms” under the Second Amendment since they are not necessary for the operation of a handgun.
McGlynn concluded that there is more to the right to own firearms than just the right to bear arms, noting that “the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the Second Amendment includes ‘corollaries to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense,'” referring to the protection of the right to own firearms. One of the most fundamental aspects of the right to keep and bear weapons is the ability to load ammunition into a rifle. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment’s categorization of magazines as “arms.”
The judge ruled that people with disabilities shouldn’t have access to guns if assistive technology like arm bands are prohibited for everyone. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is aware that some gun owners require bracing to prevent their firearms from falling. As a result, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution renders the statute invalid. Pistol grips and flash suppressors are only two examples of weapon accessories that fall within this umbrella of legal protection. Since there are so many “assault rifles” currently in circulation, the court ruled that they should be granted “common use” protection.
As McGlynn summed up, he said, “The Court knows that the issues it has to deal with are very controversial and stir up strong feelings,” and he added that the injunction did not yet prevent the Act from being implemented on its own merits. The state will continue its efforts to minimize gun crime notwithstanding this ruling. A broad variety of criminal and civil regulations make it possible to apprehend and prosecute anybody who uses or threatens to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Law enforcement officials and prosecutors must take their responsibilities seriously and enforce these rules. Disturbing behavior should be reported by concerned friends and family. Offenders of gun laws should get terms that are both deterrents and penalties, and judges should apply common sense in doing so.