FEDERAL JUDGE DECLARES
ILLINOIS BAN ON AR-15 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
by
Prof. Anthony Michael Sabino
The “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (“PICA”), which effectively prohibited citizens of the Prairie State from owning so-called “assault rifles,” was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal district court. While we cannot predict if Barnett v. Raoul, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2024 WL 4728375 (S.D. Ill. November 8, 2024), will survive the inevitable appeal, the trial bench’s robust defense of both the Second Amendment and the right to possess the ubiquitous AR-15 is worthy of our attention.
In a comprehensive 168-page opinion, District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn found that the AR-15 is an item an ordinary person would keep at home for self-defense. The firearm is commonly available, is owned by millions of Americans, and arguably has been the most popular rifle in the Nation for decades. It is “clearly apparent…that law-abiding citizens choose semiautomatic AR- and AK-type rifles…for self-defense.” And with regard to the large capacity magazines which are often associated with the platform, the court found them to also be “in common use and have legitimate self-defense purposes,” for it is beyond question that “every round matters in a self-defense scenario.”
Rebuffing the government’s allegation that the semi-automatic rifle is exclusively or predominantly useful in military service, the trial bench first emphasized that the civilian AR-15 lacks the automatic fire capability essential to the modern warfighter. Second, military arms are “subject to exact standards of military specificity and rigorous quality-insurance inspections,” and are regulated by “vastly different procurement and quality assurance standards.” These preconditions, “by definition,” are wholly inapplicable to civilian firearms (emphasis in the original).
It is inarguable, declared District Judge McGlynn, that the AR-15 “has never been used by any military force on the planet” (emphasis in the original), notwithstanding any external similarities to its far more robust military progenitor. To conflate the M-16 with the AR-15 would be as grievous a mistake as equating military Humvees and regulation battle dress uniforms to their far meeker civilian counterparts.
The government likewise failed on its claim that semi-automatic rifles must be banned for reason of their alleged “lethality.” The district court summarily disabused this argument, proclaiming that the Second Amendment does not delimit the self-defense options of the “elderly, disabled, or small-statured” to an unwieldy pump-action shotgun, when they can deploy the AR-15 “more easily, safely, and securely.”
Finally, confounding any assertion that semi-automatic firearms are possessed solely for unlawful purposes, the district court found that the criminal acts implicating such firearms are “clearly outliers;” even then, “such tragedies are not an excuse to restrict the rights guaranteed…by the Second Amendment” (emphasis in the original). Even the most horrific crimes misusing such firearms constitute “the exception, not the rule” (emphasis in the original), especially when one considers that the “vast majority of AR-15 semiautomatic rifles purchased in Illinois…are confined to individuals’ homes or firearms ranges.”
Barnett must now endure the rigors of an appeal. Nevertheless, District Judge McGlynn’s steadfast defense of the Second Amendment liberty guarantee stands tall for its thoroughness, erudition, and common sense. We can only hope other jurists shall take notice.
FINAL Illinois Assault Weapons Ban ANJRPC v.1
AMS/dal