Is Biden Behind Trump’s Gag Order?

By

Appeals Court Backs Illinois Ban on Assault Weapons

In a decisive ruling on Friday, an appellate court confirmed the validity of Illinois’ prohibition on assault weapons, recognizing such a ban as a legitimate regulatory measure on the rights afforded by the Second Amendment. This follows a similar rationale applied to restrictions on other constitutional rights.

The court’s opinion, articulated by Judge Diane Wood, draws parallels between regulating the Second Amendment and other lawful limitations on rights. For example, sanctioning false alarms, imposing permit requirements for gatherings, voter ID laws, and penalizing child abuse despite religious claims.

The legislative journey of Illinois’ ban began in the wake of a tragic mass shooting during an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, resulting in the death of seven individuals and injuring many. The subsequent legislation faced a series of legal battles, barely passing state judicial scrutiny, and faced collective challenges in the federal courts, which maintained the ban’s constitutionality. Even the U.S. Supreme Court, thus far, has opted not to review the case.

The crux of the debate rested on interpreting the high court’s decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down parts of New York’s gun control laws. Challengers of the Illinois ban suggested that, based on the Bruen decision, states cannot ban weapons that are commonly used. However, Judge Wood highlighted the danger in allowing a “popularity contest” to determine constitutional rights.

The decision was met with applause by gun control advocates and Illinois Democrats. Governor JB Pritzker heralded the law as a “commonsense” approach, emphasizing Illinois’ commitment to rejecting militarized weaponry in civilian spaces, in the face of opposition from pro-gun factions. He underscored the need for federal action to ensure Illinois isn’t left alone in this endeavor.

The Brady group, a prominent gun control organization, lauded the ruling as a triumph in combating gun violence and as affirmation of the constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

While this ruling marks a significant moment, the legal discourse may not be over, as the Supreme Court could choose to weigh in on the issue in the future. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have previously indicated that procedural reasons, rather than the substantive legal questions, prevented the Supreme Court’s involvement at an earlier stage, leaving the door open for potential future consideration.