Gun rights groups vow to appeal seventh circuit ruling on “assault weapons”

Sections

Last week, a three-judge panel from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois law banning so-called “assault weapons” is Constitutional, which seems directly in opposition to the Heller and Bruen Supreme Court decisions. The Court combined several challenges to the Illinois law into a single hearing. Second Amendment advocates viewed the three-judge panel as practicing judicial advocacy. Several of the plaintiffs in the cases have now vowed to take the challenge to the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS).

(Article by Sundance republished from AmmoLand.com)

The law known as the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA) banned most semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The law also restricted magazines from holding more than ten rounds. The law was a centerpiece of Gov J.B. Pritzker’s gun control plan. Gov. Pritzker has been adamant about implementing his plan to take on gun rights.

In the face of Illinois’ recent assault weapons ban, pro-gun advocates remain steadfast in their commitment to defending their Second Amendment rights. With an unwavering belief in the importance of self-defense and individual liberty, these advocates refuse to back down. The ban, which restricts the possession and sale of certain firearms, has been met with fierce opposition from gun owners across the state.

Pro-gun advocates argue that such legislation unfairly targets law-abiding citizens who are simply exercising their constitutional rights. They contend that responsible gun ownership is a fundamental aspect of American culture and should not be infringed upon by government overreach. By promising to take their case to the Supreme Court, these advocates seek legal recourse to protect not only their own rights, but also those of future generations.

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Use our decentralized, blockchain-based, uncensorable free speech platform at Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

One of those groups is the Illinois State Rifle Association. Ed Sullivan, a lobbyist for the group, said he wasn’t surprised by the decision. All three judges were appointed by Democrats who have a long history of anti-gun actions. The group said it would be challenging the ruling and was willing to ask SCOTUS to decide the case. He speculated that the plaintiffs from the other cases would follow a similar path.

The three-judge panel ruled that AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms are not in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The Court refused to acknowledge the many self-defense usages of modern sporting rifles. A Federal District Judge in California found a plethora of examples of Americans using semiautomatic rifles for self-defense. The District Judge, Roger Benitez, pointed out a pregnant woman who used an AR-15 to fight off home invaders, possibly saving herself and her unborn baby.

Even though the battle against the PICA is far from over, Gov. Pritzker celebrated the victory and took a victory lap. He states that the law will save lives, even though criminals do not follow laws, and law-abiding citizens are the only ones who will follow the law.

“The Protect Illinois Communities Act is a commonsense law that will keep Illinoisans safe,” Gov. Pritzker said in a statement about the Court’s decision. “Despite constant attacks by the gun lobby that puts ideology over people’s lives, here in Illinois, we have stood up and said, ‘no more’ to weapons of war on our streets.”

The plaintiffs can ask for an en banc hearing where the whole bench will hear the case. The makeup of the Court might make that a monumental challenge. The groups could also go directly to SCOTUS, which will require the high Court to grant a writ of certiorari, meaning they will hear the case. If SCOTUS does hear the case, it could mean a death blow for this and other similar laws from around the country.

Bevis v Naperville Opinion by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd