Posted on 05/03/2023 12:39:58 PM PDT by marktwain
U.S.A. — In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal Judge Stephen P. McGlynn has issued a well-reasoned and argued opinion covering several challenges to the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA). The opinion puts in place a temporary injunction against the enforcement of PICA.
PICA bans the ownership of over 190 models of firearms and criminalizes the possession of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, among other things. Judge McGlynn filed the opinion on April 28, 2023. The opinion is straightforward. In the fifth paragraph, after describing the events leading up to the passage of PICA, Judge McGlynn expounds on the rights Americans enjoy, which are protected by the United States Constitution. From the opinion:
As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms, especially on Independence Day. Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific? More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is “likely no.” The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted.
Judge McGlynn expounds on the immediate harm to the plaintiffs. He explains any denial of Constitutionally protected rights is an immediate harm. Even so, Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, argues (arguendo, “for the sake of the argument”), there are other, obvious, immediate harms. Plaintiffs may not purchase firearms or magazines they desire. Plaintiffs may not sell existing inventory.
There is hope for America!
Pluck em. Do it anyhow.
Excellent: PICA (Protect Illinois Communities Act) is refuted by ELITE (Every Liberal in Illinois is Temporarily Enjoined), thanks to this clear-headed judge.
(Old people who used typewriters will see what I did there).
I am assuming that the judge is a gun owner. He rightly points out that banned pistol braces and flash suppressors are actually helpful for law-abiding citizens to use.
He threw all that out saying it causes citizens ‘harm’s. He’s right.
.
nope. when the libs lose they will just pass another law to slowly work it’s way through the courts.
lawfair will never stop until they win.
He's 100% correct on stopping the law while litigation is pursued. He's 100% wrong on keeping law abiding citizens from purchasing regulation magazines to buying/selling currently owned firearms, thus rendering their 2A rights useless.
This Court agrees that magazines are “arms” as used in the plain text of the Second Amendment.
I see. My bad. My apologies. I read it completely wrong. I was reading that, in addition to placing the moratorium on the law, he also placed limits on the Plaintiffs. That is entirely not the case and I read the article completely wrong.
Nice to see you are paying attention.
We all make mistakes, except those who do nothing. They make the biggest mistake of all.
I thought it said he threw all that out too. No?
I’m not that bad at comprehension, but that article was written rather confusing.
So would this hold for Washington State as well? Inslee signed a similar ban that on the surface appeared to violate the Bruen ruling, not that he cares what the U.S. Constitution says . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS5GNAkemaI
Above is a gun law attorney from WA state that has been doing lots of videos lately about what is happening. This video talks about this court review and how it will impact other state’s laws regarding gun rights.
Thanks, marktwain! Very informative. Good news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.