An attorney representing gun dealers and owners on Monday said an Illinois law banning semi-automatic guns such as the AR-15 violates the right of many “law abiding citizens throughout the state” to shoot recreationally, hunt and defend themselves.
They made the argument as part of opening statements at the start of a week-long federal trial in East Saint Louis over Illinois’ assault weapons ban, in which U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn will decide whether the nearly two-year-old law violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In his opening statement, Christopher Wells with the Illinois Attorney General’s office recalled the 2022 Highland Park mass shooting, where the suspected gunman used an AR-15-style weapon to shoot into a Fourth of July Parade, killing four and wounding dozens more.
Since Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law on January 10, 2023, gun rights advocates and elected officials filed a flurry of litigation in both state and federal courts, with appeals going up to the U.S. Supreme Court - which declined to take up the case in July.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case was one of several court losses for opponents of the ban. However, those losses were only temporary, and this week’s trial is the first time a judge will weigh the question of whether the law is constitutional. It is still possible the case could make it to the nation’s highest court, in fact Justice Clarence Thomas said the court needs to offer more guidance “on which weapons the Second Amendment covers.”
Plaintiff’s had tried to pause enforcements of the Illinois law while the courts consider the constitutionality question. McGlynn granted a preliminary injunction on the ban in April 2023, but the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on that order less than a week later. The appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, denied another attempt for injunctive relief in November of that year, with Judge Diane Wood writing that semi-automatic guns are like military-style weapons, and therefore do not fall under “arms” protected under the Second Amendment.
But in his opening statement, attorney representing the plaintiffs Andrew Lothson said these guns are not exclusively, nor predominantly used in military contexts. Lothson, who practices out of Chicago, said the law bans many popular shotguns, “including those used right here in Southern Illinois for duck hunting.”
Wells, however, pointed to the 7th Circuit Court ruling, which said the AR-15 is not materially different from the M-16 fully-automatic rifle, commonly used in the military. A 2008 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case found that states can restrict citizens from owning guns used in the military. Wells also said a gun’s popularity in sales “tells us nothing about Americans’ actual self defense needs.”
The first witness on Monday was Scott Pulaski, a gun dealer in East Alton, Ill. about 20 miles north of the federal courthouse. Pulaski testified that much of what he carried at his shop, Piasa Armory, are guns and magazines banned under the law. The law makes exemptions for people who are in the military or law enforcement. Pulaski said most of his customers don’t fall into the exemptions category, and his overall sales since the law took effect have gone down by 30 percent.
McGlynn’s questions were geared towards showing Pulaski’s shop has a strict background checking process for its customers, even affirming with Pulaski that his customers were buying banned guns to “protect their homes, protect their families.”
“Common people own these guns,” Pulaski told WBEZ in an interview afterwards. “It's not issued out to the military. These are things that people buy for lawful purposes.”
Next to take the witness stand, called by the plaintiffs, was military expert Jeffrey Eby. He serves as the chairman of the Marine Gunner Association, and served in the Marines for 11 years before working on military weapon research.
He testified that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal’s characterization that semi-automatic guns are similar to those used in the military is false. He said service members are using fully-automatic rifles, like the M27, since they are able to fire more rounds per second. And Eby testified that as a civilian, he would use an AR-15 for home defense.
“I disagree with this premise that they can disarm the populace and force us to be victims,” Eby told WBEZ in an interview after he testified.
Wells, in his cross examination, said a 9 mm handgun, which is commonly used by law enforcement officers, is enough to incapacitate a potential home invader until the police arrive.
Both parties in the case will be back in court Tuesday morning to resume testimony.
Copyright 2024 WGLT
