Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law
The following legal decisions concern the law of self-defense. Some of the rulings are final and others are not. They’re presented here to be read for their excellent judicial logic about the absolute civil right of armed self-defense as established by the framers of the US Constitution.
[ Read the SemperVerus article, USA State Constitutions Providing for Armed Self-Defense ]
- US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruling: Harrel v. Raoul (November 8, 2024) by US District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn (pdf).
- This 168-page ruling declares provisions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) which criminalize possession of so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.’”
“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 more excerpts from this ruling in the SemperVerus article, Federal Judge Rules Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Unconstitutional
- Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling: Reno May, et al. v. Robert Bonta, et al. (September 6, 2024) by US Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber (pdf).
- This ruling affirms an injunction against California’s restrictions prohibiting licensed concealed carry of self-defensive arms “with respect to hospitals and similar medical facilities, public transit, gatherings that require a permit, places of worship, financial institutions, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places, and the new default rule as to private property.” *
[ Get the SemperVerus booklet, The Case for Biblical Self-Defense ]