Thread by @mkolken

BREAKING #2A News: Federal District Court Judge in Illinois enters preliminary injunction blocking State's new “assault weapon” ban, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds, and creating a registry for currently owned semi-automatic rifles. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

"As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms, especially on Independence Day."

"Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?"

"More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court."

"The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is 'likely no.'”

"The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them."

"Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them."

"Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens."

"For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted."

"Barnett and Norman are no longer able to purchase any firearm, attachment, device, magazine, or other item banned by PICA, while Hoods and Pro Gun are now prohibited from selling said any item banned by PICA. These harms are irreparable and in direct violation of the Second… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"There is no question that the right to armed self-defense is limited by PICA, and in some cases, may be prohibited altogether."

"It is true that not all items are banned under PICA; however, if a lawful citizen only possesses items that are banned under PICA, he or she would have to purchase a non-banned firearm in order to legally defend oneself under the Second Amendment."

"But for PICA, Barnett and Norman would purchase additional banned firearms and magazines. Should either one attempt to do so, he could face criminal penalties. There is no monetary award that can compensate for such an injury and make them whole."

"Likelihood of Success on the Merits:

This Court will first address Defendants’ contention that 'non-essential accessories' are not within the scope of the Second Amendment’s plain text. Defendants contend that such items are not necessary to the functioning of a firearm and are… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"It is hard to imagine something more closely correlated to the right to use a firearm in self-defense than the ability to effectively load ammunition into the firearm." twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"'a magazine is an arm under the Second Amendment.'"

"This Court agrees that magazines are 'arms' as used in the plain text of the Second Amendment."

"Plaintiffs are correct that '[t]his is not even a close call.'”

"If Defendants’ own expert incorporates magazine capacity into his definition of a firearm, given his level of expertise, it would be unreasonable to expect the original public meaning of the plain text to not reflect a similar understanding."

"PICA also interferes with the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for one group of individuals — those with disabilities."

"To provide one example, consider arm braces for semiautomatic pistols."

"Thus, arm braces are an integral part of the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for such individuals and can also be considered an 'arm.'"

“the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use” is “an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.”

“[T]he core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective.”

"Undoubtedly, training, practice, and proficiency for effective exercise of Second Amendment rights refers to the ability of citizens to accurately shoot and hit their intended target in case of confrontation."

"Therefore, because the 'meaningful exercise' of the right to armed self-defense is wholly dependent on the ability of citizens to utilize their arms and hit their intended target, items that aid in accuracy may be considered 'arms' and are presumptively protected by the Second… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"This argument [that '[n]either large capacity magazines nor assault weapons were in common use when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified.'] is 'bordering on the frivolous' because 'the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"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." twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"The only argument Defendants made to bear their burden of showing that the arms regulated by PICA are not in common use, rather than attempting to change the constitutional analysis, is that the '[s]ales and ownership numbers do not show commonality or use.'"

"Defendants made no argument and present no evidence regarding the commonality of the two 'arms' examples from the plain text analysis above."

"Such 'arms' are part of semiautomatic pistols. As the Supreme Court found 'handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense' and are thus clearly in common use and protected by the Second Amendment."

"Rather, Defendants’ focused almost entirely on AR-15 rifles and their commonality or lack thereof."

“[t]here is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles.” Heller, 670 F.3d at 1269 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting)

"However, supposing that Defendants need only show that AR-15 rifles are not in common use, they still fail."

"Under the Caetano test, even 1% of the 24 million AR-15 style rifles held by citizens is sufficient to result in a finding that such arms are in common use."

"However, the Court need not rely solely on the current ownership numbers to determine commonality of use of these arms. The AR-15 style rifles are among the most popular arms produced 'account[ing] for nearly half of the rifles produced in 2018 and nearly 20% of all firearms of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"Further, considering the commonality of magazines banned by PICA, which as this Court explained are 'arms' for purposes of the Second Amendment, the analysis becomes even more clear. There are 'about 39 million individuals' who 'have owned magazines that hold over 10 rounds (up… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"Although '[t]here may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use. . . that capacity is surely not ten' and probably not fifteen either."

"Therefore, both AR-15 style rifles and magazines with a capacity of greater than ten are 'in common use' and protected by the Second Amendment."

"Defendants failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that the 'arms' banned by PICA are 'dangerous and unusual' and thus not protected by the Second Amendment."

"In determining if PICA is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, the question is whether there were 'relevantly similar' regulations dating back to the Founding."

"Meaning that 'even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.'"

"The government must only 'identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.'”

"When assessing a historical analogue to determine if it passes 'constitutional muster' a court is guided by two metrics: 'how and why' the right to bear arms was burdened."

The 'how and why' of a concealed carry regulation is categorically different than the 'how and why' of a ban on possession and cannot pass 'constitutional muster' as a historical analogue to demonstrate this Nation’s historical tradition regarding an 'arms' ban."

"There is no question that Plaintiffs are harmed by PICA and will continue to be harmed if this Court denies the motion for preliminary injunction. A constitutional right is at stake."

"Some Plaintiffs cannot purchase their firearm of choice, nor can they exercise their right to self-defense in the manner they choose. They are bound by the State’s limitations. Moreover, other Plaintiffs cannot sell their inventory, even to residents of other states that do not… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"The Court must also balance the severity of PICA against the core Second Amendment right of armed self-defense with the public-interest justification of protecting Illinois communities."

"It is uncontroverted that law-abiding members of society, including the elderly, infirmed, and disabled, have the constitutional right to arm themselves for self-defense."

"It is also uncontroverted that many of the banned modifiers, including but not limited to pistol grips, protruding grips, flash suppressors, and shrouds, have legitimate purposes that assist law-abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves."

"The other side is less clear – there is no evidence as to how PICA will actually help Illinois Communities."

"It is also not lost on this Court that the Illinois Sheriff’s Association and some Illinois States Attorneys believe PICA unconstitutional and cannot, in good conscience, enforce the law as written and honor their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution."

"In no way does this Court minimize the damage caused when a firearm is used for an unlawful purpose; however, this Court must be mindful of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution."

"While PICA was purportedly enacted in response to the Highland Park shooting, it does not appear that the legislature considered an individual’s right under the Second Amendment nor Supreme Court precedent."

"Moreover, PICA did not just regulate the rights of the people to defend themselves; it restricted that right, and in some cases, completely obliterated that right by criminalizing the purchase and the sale of more than 190 'arms.'"