Judge McGlynn in the Southern District of Illinois issued a ruling in Barnett v. Raoul in favor of the plaintiffs finding Illinois’ ban on so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” to be unconstitutional. For those following the ASA Foundation and Silencer Shop backed lawsuit Anderson v. Raoul, the judge in our case (Judge Dugan) deferred ruling on this case until the issues in Barnett v. Raoul had been settled by the courts. A status conference is scheduled for January 14, 2025 between Judge Dugan and the parties.
Two important findings came out of the recent Judge McGlynn’s ruling. First, he held that “common use” includes “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.”(bold in the original, at p. 75). Second, Judge McGlynn held, “The Second Amendment clearly cannot imply that those who are elderly, disabled, or small-statured must only choose a handgun or pump-action shotgun for self-dense when other options (like AR-15s) will enable them to defend their homes more easily, safely, and securely. The same is true for operator-friendly features that protect the defender’s hearing, vision, and allow for ease of use.” (at p. 113)(emphasis added).
These are important precedents that support the current ASA Foundation and Silencer Shop backed case in Illinois as well as our future litigation efforts in our fight to protect and expand suppressor ownership nationwide!
