In a stunning victory for gun rights supporters, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn delivers a powerful blow to the Democratic push for gun control, overturning Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. This landmark decision breathes new life into the battle for Second Amendment rights, sending shockwaves through the Democratic party and the Biden administration. The judge’s ruling could set a new precedent, challenging similar bans across the nation and potentially sending the issue to the Supreme Court. Will this be the turning point for gun rights in America? Stay tuned to hear how this extraordinary decision may impact your right to bear arms.
In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has granted a preliminary injunction against Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, marking a significant victory for gun rights advocates. This ruling comes after two other district courts upheld the ban, potentially sending the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court. The decision challenges the Democratic calls to remove AR-15s and similar weapons, including President Joe Biden’s call for stricter gun control. Judge McGlynn’s decision emphasizes that even popular legislation must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens, reaffirming the importance of the Second Amendment in American society.
The court confronted the argument made by many gun control advocates that states can ban “non-essential accessories” like magazines because they are not themselves “arms” under the Second Amendment. However, Judge McGlynn rejected this argument, citing the Seventh Circuit’s recognition of the Second Amendment as extending to “corollar[ies] to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.” The Third Circuit also held that “a magazine is an arm under the Second Amendment.”
Furthermore, McGlynn stated that it is “bordering on the frivolous” to claim that neither large capacity magazines nor assault weapons are protected because they were not in common use when the Second Amendment was ratified. He cited the long-standing rule that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
The court also rejected the claim that the standard is whether a weapon was in common use for self-defense:
“Bruen clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects ‘possession and use’ of weapons ‘in common use’ not just weapons in common use for self-defense as Defendants’ argued. Even if there was a requirement that the ‘common use’ of an ‘arm’ be self-defense, AR-15 style rifles would meet such a test considering that 34.6% of owners utilize these rifles for self-defense outside of their home and 61.9% utilize them for self-defense at home.”
The court further noted that large capacity magazines are commonly owned and used by sporting enthusiasts and there are more AR-15s than F150s in this country.
Judge McGlynn also noted that these weapons are commonly used for self-defense and that there are up to 2.5 million instances each year in which civilians used firearms for home defense.:
Judge McGlynn acknowledged the damage caused by firearms used unlawfully but emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional rights. He stated that the PICA legislation, enacted in response to the Highland Park shooting, did not consider individual rights under the Second Amendment nor Supreme Court precedent. He argued that PICA restricted and, in some cases, eliminated the right to self-defense by criminalizing the purchase and sale of over 190 types of arms. Furthermore, the right to possess these items will be further limited and restricted from January 1, 2024. The court’s ruling is not a final resolution, and the state can still address firearm-related violence through various civil and criminal laws. Law enforcement, prosecutors, families, and judges all have responsibilities to ensure public safety while respecting constitutional rights.
In a monumental victory for gun rights advocates, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn’s decision to overturn Illinois’ ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines sends a clear message: the Second Amendment remains a vital component of American society. This ruling not only challenges the Democratic push for gun control but also sets the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown. As the battle for gun rights continues, it is essential to remember that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and legislation must not infringe upon these fundamental rights. This landmark decision reinforces the importance of upholding constitutional rights, even in the face of popular legislation. As the debate around gun control continues to unfold, this case may serve as a turning point for future discussions on the balance between public safety and individual liberties. Stay with us as we continue to cover this groundbreaking ruling and its implications for the future of the Second Amendment in the United States.
Let’s continue this conversation, in the comments below.
