Federal Judge Rules Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional

Illinois’ ban on AR-15 modern sporting rifles and other misidentified “assault weapons” violates the Second Amendment.

US District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn declared Nov. 8, 2024 that Illinois’ law, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), making it a crime to acquire and possess many common modern semi-automatic firearms violates the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, saying, “As the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Senior US District Judge Rules California’s Ban on AR-15s to Be Unconstitutional ]

Here are excerpts from his comprehensive and understandable 168-page ruling:

“Why are there small lifeboats on gigantic steel ocean liners? Why do we spend thousands equipping our vehicles with airbags?…And why do we protect ourselves with firearms? In life, we face many perils. Some are natural weather phenomena….Some perils are associated with important products like…automobiles…Too often, the perils we face are forced upon us by other people. By people who are negligent, reckless, insane, impaired, or evil. Sometimes it is the proverbial lone wolf; sometimes, it is the whole wolf pack. And who comes to our aid in times of peril?…Sometimes, it is no one.”

“The AR-15 is the Rorschach test of America’s gun debate. 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. Many see one, but not the other. Our task here is to understand the duality of much of the data and the reasons for varying interpretations. Are they seeing a dragon to be slayed or a horse to pull a carriage? Often, the different perspectives are defined by whom they picture using the weapon—either a menacing criminal or a law-abiding citizen involved in a dangerous confrontation.”

“So much about firearms is contentious, from the political debate to the jurisprudential debate. At the crossroads of this debate stands the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Senior US District Judge Declares Gun Magazine Capacity Limits Unconstitutional ]

“[T]his Court defines bearable as: a weapon that an individual carries for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

“[T]his Court defines dangerous as: bearable arms that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors. Once more, it is the lack of the ability to discriminately control the arm and its discharged projectiles that makes it dangerous, not its rate of fire.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law ]

“[U]nusual is defined as: an arm deploying an atypical method to neutralize an opponent in confrontation or that deploys a neutralizing agent that is caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous, or radioactive. Unusual would also include those weapons that are not designed for successful self-defense in neutralizing an opponent, but rather are primarily deployed to inflict cruel, brutal, or inhumane suffering on a person.”

“[This Court defines common use as presumptively encompassing: any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise ‘dangerous and unusual.’ Moreover, for the sake of clarity, the Court will also include essential features (like magazines) and nonessential features that increase operability, accuracy, or safety (like the various attachments prohibited by PICA) as items that are presumptively in common use.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, USA State Constitutions Providing for Armed Self-Defense ]

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is not crime reduction. Its focus is self-defense and the ability of each citizen to be able to either repel an attack by one or more adversaries or to offensively engage an adversary or adversaries to protect oneself and/or others.”

“In an emergent situation, the accuracy, safety, ease-of-use, and magazine capacity of an individual defense weapon may literally be the difference between life or death of the civilian and his or her family members.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Brief Answers for People Who Are Against the 2nd Amendment ]

“[W]hile both members of the military and civilians may be called upon to engage in confrontation, the civilian is often an army of one and has no backup, no support, and no reinforcements in the moment when home confrontation occurs. They will often not have the same physical fitness abilities as trained professional soldiers. Moreover, they may not have the benefit of military training and conditioning on which they can rely in a life-or-death scenario. The life and death stakes mandate that their firearms have both lethal capabilities and give, at a minimum, our citizens a fighting chance. Therefore, sorting between military use and private use is an exercise in understanding civilian self-defense. One cannot properly address the scope of the Second Amendment without understanding the complex dynamics of self-defense in which lethal force may be required to repel a rapist, a murderer, a kidnapper, or a stalker.”

“Pleading for mercy because one is innocent, unarmed, and under-armed is, sadly, too often a losing strategy in confrontation, especially when the confrontation is catalyzed by evil, hatred, or psychosis. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not also bring about happy endings. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not inoculate us from the evil, hatred, and psychosis or from the tyranny of others.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, A Treasure Trove of Gun Information: The Defensive Use of Firearms Website ]

“Self-defense involves strategic decisions to maximize tactical superiority over an adversary. The first strategic decision is fight, flight, or surrender. If one can quickly access a bulletproof safe room, that would establish the tactical advantage of invulnerability. The strategic decisions become more complex the more an adversary has gained a tactical advantage by surprise, size, number, skill sets, close proximity, reducing the defender’s response times, and, of course, the availability of specific weapons.”

“The Second Amendment guarantees that one may keep and bear arms for self-defense. Thus, a civilian defender has the advantage of forethought and the ability to plan and prepare for various ‘what if’ scenarios. We have the right to select arms that may give us tactical advantages against an adversary….One size, one configuration, one type of ammunition does not fit all.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Survey: Protection Is the Main Reason People Own a Gun ]

“Consider the most famous story of confrontation, the story of David and Goliath. 1 Samuel 17….David selected an arm that allowed him to fire a projectile from a safe distance to impose lethal force on his opponent before the giant closed within an adequate distance to slay David with his sword. Not only did David have to deploy a lethal weapon—he had to quickly and successfully neutralize Goliath. David’s strategy to use a lethal weapon from a safe distance led to success in confrontation….[I]t is clear that an individual’s choice of arms is a critical facet of the concept of self-defense….To limit civilians’ choice of arms would tip the scale in favor of the aggressors, who already will likely have various tactical advantages, including the element of surprise.”

“[I]t is clearly apparent to this Court that law-abiding citizens choose semiautomatic AR- and AK-type rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, various machine pistols, large capacity magazines, and assorted firearm attachments for self-defense.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, 20 Reasons to Concealed Carry a Defensive Firearm ]

“Regarding thirty-round large-capacity magazines and the various attachments (e.g., pistol grips, flash suppressors, and the like) at issue here, this Court holds that these devices are also in common use and have legitimate self-defense purposes. For magazines, every round matters in a self-defense scenario—reloading takes away significant time during which the defender can be injured or wounded. Moreover, unlike in military combat where soldiers are equipped with pockets, vests, and belts to carry spare ammunition, a defender will only have what he or she can carry. Thus, in a critical self-defense scenario, more rounds equals a higher chance of survival.”

“Regardless of its external appearance, the Court holds that an AR-15 is, frankly, not at all the same weapon as the M16 rifle or M4 carbine used by the United States military.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, US Supreme Court Affirms Right to Carry Arms in Public for Self-Defense ]

“[T]he Court holds that ‘dual use’ refers to weapons that, while predominantly useful in military contexts, are also useful for civilian offensive or defensive use in confrontation such that they would be covered by the Second Amendment’s guarantee….[A] clear example is the semiautomatic handguns that are useful in military service yet are also ‘the quintessential self-defense weapon.’”

“Regardless of state governments’ desire to restrict law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights under the guise of crime control, the Second Amendment conclusively protects law-abiding citizens’ right to defend themselves utilizing weapons that are in common use. After serious consideration of the mandate of a multitude of different self-defense scenarios and the challenging dynamics of such events, it becomes obvious that the extensive scope of the rights guaranteed the citizens to keep and bear arms without government infringement is wise and necessary.”

[ Read the SemperVerus article, Worldviews and Emotional Assumptions in the Gun Civil Rights Debate ]

“The Second Amendment is a time-honored civil right that has been enshrined in our Constitution for centuries; it deserves at least the same respect as befitting its status in the Bill of Rights. Even so, it has consistently been treated as a ‘second-class right.’”

“[T]he Court must take action as justice demands. PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined. The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.”

[ Get the SemperVerus booklet, The Case for Biblical Self-Defense ]

“Sadly, there are those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens’ individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class….The oft-quoted phrase that ‘no right is absolute’ does not mean that fundamental rights precariously subsist subject to the whims, caprice, or appetite of government officials or judges.”

“Most importantly, considering all of the evidence presented, the Court holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

[ Read SemperVerus articles on the topic of the SECOND AMENDMENT ]

Invite SemperVerus^® to present its 5 life-changing success-generating components—prepare, aware, be, know, do—to your organization to inspire and motivate your members.

Join the SemperVerus Brotherhood™!