U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn gave both parties in the legal dispute over the Protect Illinois Communities Act until Monday to submit their final briefs in the case after a bench trial wrapped up about a month ago. The Illinois AG's office produced a last-minute document dump of more than 3,000 pages of arguments and exhibits in the hopes of keeping the ban in place, but Raoul also had a request for McGlynn if he finds that the law violates the right to keep and bear arms.
Among the state's closing arguments are that restricted items “were designed for military combat,” “far exceeds what is commonly used for self-defense” and the law “responds to unprecedented societal concerns.”
“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a permanent injunction because they have not prevailed on their claims,” one filing from the state says. “If the Court disagrees, however, any injunction it enters must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending review by appellate courts.”
Plaintiffs argue the law violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and runs afoul of precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court that any law restricting access to firearms must fit in the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment.
If McGlynn does find that the law violates the Second Amendment, as I suspect he will, then there is no good reason to keep the law in place while Illinois appeals to the Seventh Circuit. In fact, if the judge truly believes that PICA is a violation of our civil rights, I'd say he'd be derelict in his duty if he allowed the law to be enforced while the state appeals his decision.
