Federal judge rules Illinois assault weapons ban unconstitutional, attorney general vows to appeal
A federal judge downstate found Illinois’ controversial assault weapons ban unconstitutional Friday, calling AR-15s “the Rorschach test of America’s gun debate” but concluding that fundamental rights do not “subsist subject to the whims … of government officials or judges.”
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn follows a recent trial in East St. Louis over the merits of the law, which was inspired by the deadly 2022 shooting during Highland Park’s Fourth of July parade. It left seven people dead.
McGlynn’s ruling, which does not go into effect for 30 days, is not surprising. He found last year that the gun law not only restricts the right to defend oneself but, in some cases, “completely obliterated that right.” That 2023 ruling, which also briefly stopped enforcement of the law, was blocked in a matter of days by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office confirmed Friday it plans to appeal this latest ruling. A spokesman for Gov. J.B. Pritzker added that “despite those who value weapons of war more than public safety, this law was enacted to and has protected Illinoisans … The governor is confident the constitutionality of the Protect Illinois Communities Act will be upheld.”
The litigation over Illinois’ assault weapons ban is viewed as likely to reach as high as the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in July that if the 7th Circuit “ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can — and should — review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”
Gun-rights advocates quickly celebrated McGlynn’s ruling. The Second Amendment Foundation called it “a huge victory” and a “big defeat” for “the gun prohibition lobby and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.”
Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement that “this week just keeps getting better for gun owners and worse for anti-gunners like J.B. Pritzker. We warned them to fall in line, but instead they chose to do the opposite.”
McGlynn opened his 168-page ruling by asking “why do we protect ourselves with firearms?”
“Who comes to our aid in times of peril?” he wrote. “Sometimes, it is the police or first responders; other times it is healthcare professionals; and sometimes it is family, friends, or neighbors. Sometimes, it is no one.”
The judge then pointed to the “Rabbit and Duck Illusion” — and included the image in his ruling. He wrote that “the image distinguishes perception from interpretation. If you see only a duck, your interpretation of the data is too narrow.”
“The AR-15 is the Rorschach test of America’s gun debate,” he wrote. “In listening to the political debate and in reading various judicial interpretations of what the AR-15 represents, it is obvious that many are seeing very different creatures.”
Federal judges in Chicago and elsewhere have indeed struggled with recent Supreme Court rulings over the nation’s gun laws, ever since a 2022 case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. It held that gun regulations must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The court clarified its thinking somewhat in a case this summer known as United State v. Rahimi, saying that “these precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”