Gun Ban To Remain In Place Pending Hearing

After a historic victory in FFL-IL v. Pritzker last month (see story below), hopes were high that the law would remain stayed until the appeal from the state could be heard. Likelihood of winning on the merits is, after all, a key criterion for keeping such a stay in place, and the most recent ruling certainly lays out in great detail how the current law violates the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to keep the bans in place as the state’s appeal is heard. It’s a disappointing outcome to be sure, but one that often plays out in circuit courts favorable to gun control laws. The presumption seems to be that 2A restrictions are constitutional until proven otherwise, which is a stark contrast to how other fundamental rights are treated.

Despite the ruling, the prospects for the case remain strong.

“Second Amendment Law Center and our fellow amici in this case made strong arguments relating to the Bruen standard that are well reflected and thoroughly documented in Judge McGlynn’s decision,” noted Chuck Michel, President & Senior Legal Counsel for 2ALC. “We are confident that those same arguments will carry significant weight on appeal and that the eventual outcome in this case, whether from the 7th Circuit or the Supreme Court, will be a positive one for lawful gun owners, not just in Illinois, but in other jurisdictions where similar schemes are being considered.”

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country. SUBSCRIBE BELOW TO KEEP UPDATED! AND DONATE TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST PICA!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

More on Yesterday's Historic Decision

Second Amendment Law Center is excited to announce its district court final judgment victory in FFL-IL v. Pritzker, our challenge to Illinois’s ban on common semiautomatic rifles, pistols, shotguns, and “high capacity” magazines. While three other consolidated lawsuits joined us, only our case challenged Illinois’s registration requirement, and we also prevailed on that aspect of the case.

Judge McGlynn issued a thorough 168-page ruling that applied both the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedent and the Seventh Circuit’s more questionable reformulation of it. While Judge McGlynn criticized the Seventh Circuit’s ruling repeatedly, he ultimately concluded that our lawsuit should prevail even under that standard.

Calling the AR-15 the “Rorschach test of America’s gun debate”, Judge McGlynn first explained why it and similar banned firearms and their magazines are undoubtedly “bearable arms” within the scope of the Second Amendment because they are weapons that “an individual carries for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” They are not dangerous because unlike machine guns, they are arms that “a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors…it is the lack of the ability to discriminately control the arm and its discharged projectiles that makes it dangerous, not its rate of fire.” Nor are they unusual, because they are not designed to inflict “cruel, brutal, or inhumane suffering on a person.”

Perhaps most interestingly, Judge McGlynn eschewed any ownership data in the common use discussion (though he did note that even the State’s own expert admitted millions of Americans own the banned firearms). Rather, common use encompasses “any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise ‘dangerous and unusual.’ ”

The Court then proceeded to answer the three questions the Seventh Circuit requires, concluding that the banned rifles and their magazines (at least those with up to a 30-round capacity) are items “an ordinary person would keep at home for self-defense..” However, he ruled that at .50 caliber rifles, grenade launchers, and belt-fed firearms do not meet that standard, and therefore are unprotected and can be restricted. Second, the banned firearms are not “exclusively or predominantly useful in military service” because, Judge McGlynn explained, they are semiautomatic firearms and not machine guns. But, even if he is wrong, he writes that they fall within the “dual use” exception the Seventh Circuit included in a footnote, for firearms used by civilians and the military, such as the Beretta M9 handgun. Third and finally, the banned firearms are almost always possessed for lawful purposes, as crime with them is rare. While mass shootings are reprehensible crimes, the overwhelming majority of gun owners use their firearms for lawful purposes.

Having found that the banned firearms and magazines are presumptively protected arms, the Court then turned to its historical analysis, in which it criticized the Seventh Circuit’s prior ruling in Bevis. “While Bevis offers several historical examples as evidence of PICA’s congruence with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation, none of these examples are as dispositive as the Seventh Circuit argues, even in light of Rahimi’s interpretation of Bruen’s command.” In response to the treatment of mass shootings as a wholly new phenomenon, Judge McGlynn pointed out that historically, “Native Americans, slaves and freedpeople, and various other “undesirable” groups were frequently victims of mass killings.” Judge McGlynn concluded that he had “taken care to analyze each facet of this case in exacting, excruciating detail in order to generate an Order that is not simply a policy decision in disguise.”

In his conclusion, McGlynn writes that the “oft-quoted phrase that ‘no right is absolute’ does not mean that fundamental rights precariously subsist subject to the whims, caprice, or appetite of government officials or judges.” Moreover, as the “prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines.”

The State has already appealed, and it is unclear if the case will now go back to the same three-judge panel that ruled against us on the preliminary injunction 2-1. However, even if it does, Judge Wood, the author of the Bevis ruling, has since retired. So, we will at least have a chance at a more favorable panel on appeal.

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

HUGE WIN! Illinois' Assault Weapon Ban Struck Down

The Second Amendment Law Center is thrilled to announce that one of the lawsuits it supported, FFL-IL v. Pritzker, has prevailed, receiving a final judgment from Judge McGlynn. The ruling strikes down Illinois’s bans on so-called “assault weapons” and their parts and “large capacity magazines” as well as its related registration scheme. While Judge McGlynn’s ruling covers four different consolidated lawsuits, only our lawsuit challenged the registration requirement, and we prevailed on that one too, relieving Illinois residents of that unconstitutional burden as well.

We will have more information soon after we have reviewed the ruling in detail. In the meantime, 2ALC salutes Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois and the many plaintiffs who have pushed these cases forward. And thanks to all of you who supported this winning effort!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

Trial This Week On Illinois Bans

Second Amendment Law Center and the California Rifle & Pistol Association are happy to announce that the trial begins next week in the cases challenging Illinois’s ban on common semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and gun parts (Note that several cases have been consolidated into one appeal from Barnett v. Raoul, Harrel v. Raoul, Langley v. Kelly, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Pritzker).

CRPA and 2ALC have been heavily involved in supporting these cases and the Plaintiffs from the beginning. Cases challenging semi-auto bans nationwide are moving through the courts and will have impacts nationally. It is vital that we participate wherever we can as courts set precedent for the future. Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, FFL-Illinois, the Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Guns Save Life, the Second Amendment Foundation, and several other groups have supported and litigated these cases since they were filed.

We initially won a preliminary injunction blocking the laws from Judge McGlynn on April 28, 2023. The State appealed, and on November 3, 2023, the Seventh Circuit incorrectly ruled that the law was constitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to review that misguided opinion, and earlier in the summer, on July 2, 2024, we were disappointed when the Supreme Court would not immediately review the Seventh Circuit’s terrible ruling in these cases. So, the incorrect ruling from the Seventh Circuit allowed Illinois’ ban on many commonly owned firearms to go into effect. However, the Supreme Court may very well accept the case later. A concurrence from Justice Thomas made clear that the reason the Court was denying review was procedural – the case was before SCOTUS at that time on a preliminary injunction appeal, and a final judgment had not happened yet in the lower court.

Significantly, SCOTUS did not decide that the cases challenging the Illinois law had no merit, and in fact Justice Thomas concluded, “If the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America's most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”

This means we must litigate the case again in the trial court, which had previously agreed with our position and issued a preliminary injunction that the Seventh Circuit ultimately overturned. The litigation has been ongoing for months, leading up to the trial set to start next week.

Preparation for the trial has been going on since then. And it has been a lot of work. The plaintiffs began assembling evidence, obtaining expert opinions, and preparing exhibits and witnesses, all necessary to take the case to trial. Judge McGlynn set a trial date in September – a pace that is practically lightspeed in the federal court system. The attorneys will argue that while the Seventh Circuit’s ruling was incorrect, we can still win even under the Seventh Circuit’s erroneous and a-historical standard. We expect experts will be called to argue why firearms like the AR-15 are great options for self-defense and to explain how they differ from their fully automatic counterparts that are used by the military. The State will have “experts” who will be cross-examined. After that, the court will prepare its judgment. This is a scorched earth fight for your Second Amendment rights, and we need your support to keep up the fight!

Once the district court issues a final judgment following the trial, the matter will move back to the Seventh Circuit and possibly then to the Supreme Court.

As we support the efforts in Barnett, our legal team made time to draft an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court granting review in Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s similar law. The Fourth Circuit recently upheld the final judgment after en banc review, meaning there is an excellent chance the Supreme Court will hear the case.

We want to thank all those groups who have joined in supporting these important cases and the continued fight ahead like Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition (SADEC), Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois (FFL-IL), Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and Second Amendment Foundation.

We will share news about next week’s ongoing trial as we have it. In the meantime, WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT to continue our efforts on this case!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

The Fight Continues: Barnett v. Raoul Denied SCOTUS Review

On July 2, the Supreme Court denied review to a number of petitions for certiorari challenging the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville, including Barnett v. Raoul, in which 2ALC had filed an amicus brief. The vote was 8-1, with Justice Alito voting to review the case now.

Justice Thomas wrote a statement to go along with his vote against review in which he explained that the reason the Court was not granting review now was because it is “rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture.” However, he urged the Court to grant review soon once a case reaches final judgment, because he would like to see the Court squarely address what type of weapons are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

Justice Thomas also heavily criticized the Seventh Circuit’s logic, writing that its “no military weapons” standard is “contrived”, before concluding that “[i]t is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.”

From here, our case will proceed to a final judgment, as Judge McGlynn is moving this case rapidly towards a trial later this year.

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country. SUBSCRIBE BELOW TO KEEP UPDATED!

DONATE TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST PICA!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

Barnett v. Raoul Headed to SCOTUS!

This week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying an en banc rehearing by an 11- judge panel in the case of Barnett v. Raoul, which is actually a consolidation of four separate 2A cases challenging aspects of Illinois gun laws, including PICA. Every judge in the Circuit passed on granting an en banc rehearing of the case, despite the ridiculous opinion from the three-judge panel upholding the law as constitutional.

This leaves no choice but to take the case to the Supreme Court. 2ALC has actively supported these fights through amicus briefs and we will continue to do so as the case moves forward. We are already at work.

“Illinois has been proposing wrong-headed firearm restrictions for years, all of which promised to protect public safety,” expressed 2ALC President Chuck Michel. “The crime rate in places like Chicago tells you all you need to know about how that works. 2ALC is proud to stand with FFL-Illinois and other appellants in these cases as they are critical to defending the right to keep and bear arms in other states as well.”

In the wake of the Bruen decision and it’s requirement to establish historical analogs for modern firearm restrictions, amicus briefs take on crucial importance in cases such as these. Historical and legal research supports the arguments being made, but requires immense time and effort. And since parties to a case cannot coordinate amicus brief campaigns, 2ALC plays a key role in such cases.

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country. SUBSCRIBE BELOW TO KEEP UPDATED! AND DONATE TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST PICA!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

Court To Hear Motion To Enjoin Vague PICA Registration Requirement

On December 12th, US District Court Judge Steven P. McGlynn will hear a request by FFL-Illinois and other plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction against the registration requirement of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) because the statute and regulations published by the Illinois State Police are so vague that no one can tell what needs to be registered. You can read the motion here.

The deadline to register designated guns and other items is December 31. A Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) meeting is also scheduled for December 12th. JCAR will vote whether to approve the ISP proposed rules. Although we have submitted comments to JCAR pointing out the problems with the law, it is a politicized body and will likely vote along party lines to allow the ISP rules to be finalized.  

According to broadcaster Greg Bishop, only 0.017% of the 2,415,481 FOID card holders have registered anything with the state. FFL-IL argues that the rules about what exactly must be registered are confusing and unconstitutionally vague and that FOID card holders and other gun owners were not given adequate notice of the need to register anything. Confusion and lack of awareness of the requirement may be a big reason that people aren’t registering.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled (wrongly) that the law was constitutional. FFL-IL and other plaintiffs have filed a request for an en banc hearing to review that decision before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. An en banc hearing would cause all fourteen judges on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the ruling by the three judge panel. Requesting en banc review should help make the cases more likely to be heard by the Supreme Court if necessary.

 2ALC is coordinating amicus briefs to file in the en banc court, or the Supreme Court.

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

Ruling Expected Soon In PICA Challenge

Last month our side filed a response brief in the case of Barnett v. Raoul with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. The brief responds to the state of Illinois’ appeal brief challenging the Preliminary Injunction awarded by the U.S. District Court that barred the implementation of the state’s misnamed “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA) which took a radical step of banning nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle possessed in America, as well as standard capacity magazines.

Oral argument on the case was held in Chicago on June 29th. A ruling from the 7th Circuit Court is expected any day.

As noted in the response brief, “the district court was thus eminently correct to recognize Illinois’s grave overstep and enjoin HB 5471”. The state cannot simply slap a label on a firearm they do not like when that firearm is one in common use and owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

“Second Amendment Law Center worked hard to coordinate amicus briefs from a wide variety of groups including law enforcement, states, scholars, and experts,” noted Chuck Michel, President & Senior Legal Counsel for 2ALC. “We expect those briefs, including a remarkable amicus brief filed by over 20 states opposing the gun ban, will have a positive impact on the court’s reasoning, and we are hopeful of a victory here. But we recognize the politics and bias behind the issues and are prepared to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.”

Anti-gun states like Illinois and California strain to try to make arguments that twist the Bruen ruling, or go outside of the Bruen ruling in an effort to get one court to side with their twisted analysis of historical laws and what it means to be armed or to bear arms through their made-up version of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The district court correctly applied Bruen to the case and the preliminary injunction should remain. Hopefully, the Seventh Circuit will agree.

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country.

SUBSCRIBE BELOW TO KEEP UPDATED! AND DONATE TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST PICA!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

Illinois News Template (Duplicate Then Edit!)

Last month our side filed a response brief in the case of Barnett v. Raoul with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. The brief responds to the state of Illinois’ appeal brief challenging the Preliminary Injunction awarded by the U.S. District Court that barred the implementation of the state’s misnamed “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA) which took a radical step of banning nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle possessed in America, as well as standard capacity magazines.

Oral argument on the case was held in Chicago on June 29th. A ruling from the 7th Circuit Court is expected any day.

As noted in the response brief, “the district court was thus eminently correct to recognize Illinois’s grave overstep and enjoin HB 5471”. The state cannot simply slap a label on a firearm they do not like when that firearm is one in common use and owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

“Second Amendment Law Center worked hard to coordinate amicus briefs from a wide variety of groups including law enforcement, states, scholars, and experts,” noted Chuck Michel, President & Senior Legal Counsel for 2ALC. “We expect those briefs, including a remarkable amicus brief filed by over 20 states opposing the gun ban, will have a positive impact on the court’s reasoning, and we are hopeful of a victory here. But we recognize the politics and bias behind the issues and are prepared to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.”

Anti-gun states like Illinois and California strain to try to make arguments that twist the Bruen ruling, or go outside of the Bruen ruling in an effort to get one court to side with their twisted analysis of historical laws and what it means to be armed or to bear arms through their made-up version of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The district court correctly applied Bruen to the case and the preliminary injunction should remain. Hopefully, the Seventh Circuit will agree.

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country. SUBSCRIBE BELOW TO KEEP UPDATED! AND DONATE TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST PICA!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER'S AMICUS BRIEF COORDINATION CAMPAIGN PAYS OFF BIG IN THE 7th CIRCUIT

Yesterday was the deadline for the state defendants to file their reply briefs and to file amicus (friend of the court) briefs in several cases challenging Illinois’ “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans in the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Perhaps most prominent among the cases are four consolidated cases proceeding under Barnett v. Raoul because those cases prevailed in the lower court and succeeded in getting a court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law. The amicus briefs were filed to support all of the groups challenging Illinois’ law banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines (the misnamed “Protect Illinois Communities Act “PICA”). 2ALC is particularly thankful for the assistance of several of the plaintiff’s groups that worked with us: FFL-Illinois, Guns Save Life, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Piasa Armory.

The amicus briefs supporting the groups challenging the law’s constitutionality are outstanding! See who stood up for the Second Amendment below.

Plaintiffs filed their response to the state’s opening briefs where the government defendants urged the court to uphold the law earlier this week. A Preliminary Injunction issued by the lower court blocked the implementation of PICA  since it bans nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle (and a whole lot more) commonly possessed in America, but the Court of Appeal stayed that injunction while the appeal was litigated so the law is currently in effect. As noted in the plaintiffs’ response brief, “the district court was thus eminently correct to recognize Illinois’s grave overstep and enjoin HB 5471”. The state cannot simply slap a misleading label on any firearm they do not like and ban those firearms when they are in common use and owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

“Second Amendment Law Center has been working hard to coordinate amicus briefs from a wide variety of groups including law enforcement, states, scholars, and experts,” noted Chuck Michel, President & Senior Legal Counsel for 2ALC.

With 2ALC’s encouragement, the following groups filed amicus briefs asking the Court of Appeals to strike down the law:

The States of Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming (This is huge! 24 States!).

International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, National Association of Chiefs of Police,

Second Amendment Law Center, Gun Owners of California, California Rifle & Pistol Association, State Line Rifle Association, Dewitt County Sportsman’s Club

American Firearms Association

D.C. Project Foundation, Operation Blazing Sword, and Liberal Gun Club

2ALC thanks all of the amicus groups that joined in supporting the challenges to this unconstitutional law.

The amicus briefs cover various issues that the plaintiffs could not cover comprehensively because of court-imposed page limitations. Those issues include what the text of the Second Amendment protects, how to properly apply the Bruen test for determining whether a gun law is constitutional, an explanation of the technology of firearms, the differences and similarities between military and civilian arms, and the appropriate time period to look for historical laws that might be appropriate to consider in determining whether the current law would be tolerated by the founders.

All of the briefs and other filings can be read here, https://michellawyers.com/barnett-et-al-v-raoul-et-al/

“We expect these amicus briefs will positively impact the court’s reasoning, and we are hopeful of a victory here. A well-coordinated amicus brief campaign can make the difference between success and failure, and that’s what the Second Amendment Law Center is all about. But we recognize the politics behind the issues and are prepared to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.” Chuck Michel.

Lawyers for anti-gun-owner states like Illinois and California play on emotions and make creative arguments to try and get around the Bruen ruling and get a court to side with their twisted analysis of historical laws and the Bruen test. They distort the Second Amendment’s meaning through their made-up version of its history and tradition.

The District Court correctly applied the Bruen test, and its preliminary injunction should remain. Hopefully, the Seventh Circuit will agree, and will uphold the lower court’s ruling.

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country. DONATE BELOW TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

APPELLEES FILE RESPONSE SEEKING TO STOP PICA

Earlier this week the appellees filed their response in the case of Barnett v. Raoul with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. The brief responds to the state of Illinois’ appeal challenging the Preliminary Injunction awarded by the lower court that barred the implementation of the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) which took a radical step of banning nearly every modern semiautomatic rifle possessed in America.

As noted in the response brief, “the district court was thus eminently correct to recognize Illinois’s grave overstep and enjoin HB 5471”. The state cannot simply slap a label on a firearm they do not like when that firearm is one in common use and owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

“Second Amendment Law Center has been working hard to coordinate amicus briefs from a wide variety of groups including law enforcement, states, scholars, and experts,” noted Chuck Michel, President & Senior Legal Counsel for 2ALC. “We expect those briefs will have a positive impact on the court’s reasoning, and we are hopeful of a victory here. But we recognize the politics behind the issues and are prepared to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.”

Anti-gun states like Illinois and California strain to try to make arguments outside of the Bruen ruling in an effort to get one court to side with their twisted analysis of historical laws and what it means to be armed or to bear arms through their made-up version of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The district court correctly applied Bruen to the case and the preliminary injunction should remain. Hopefully, the Seventh Circuit will agree.

We must continue to fight back and hold the ground that we are gaining in each of these cases across the country. SUBSCRIBE BELOW TO KEEP UPDATED! AND DONATE TO HELP US KEEP UP THE FIGHT AGAINST PICA!

AMICUS CAMPAIGN KICKING OFF IN BARNETT V. RAOUL

The US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction in the 2ALC-supported case of Barnett v. Raoul and three other related lawsuits in Illinois that challenge the constitutionality of the state's unconstitutional new PICA law. Among other things, PICA bans the sale or transfer of any semi-automatic firearm designated by the state as an "assault weapon" and bans certain magazines based on their capacity. The PICA law is so restrictive that many Illinois sheriffs even refused to implement it.

 All four of these federal 2A cases are now consolidated in the Seventh Circuit, which has ordered all of the parties to submit their legal briefs on an expedited basis.

2ALC needs your support now to fund briefs supporting the challengers!

The State of Illinois must file its brief by June 5. Amicus briefs supporting the State are due June 12. The legal briefs by plaintiffs’ who are challenging the law are due June 19 and it is limited to 25 pages. The State’s reply brief, and all amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs are due June 26. The oral argument for all four of these cases, and several other cases challenging the law, is scheduled for June 29 in Chicago.

This shortened timetable is almost unheard of in federal courts. It really puts pressure on the lawyers writing the briefs.

Coordinating an amicus brief campaign usually takes months! So 2ALC is hard at work! 2ALC has recruited multiple friends of the court to write amicus briefs supporting the four cases challenging the law, including law enforcement and police, state associations like the California Rifle & Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California, other pro-gun-owner states, and other groups. 2ALC has put together some impressive and experienced lawyers like Steve Halbrook to write briefs on an array of topics. Because the plaintiffs brief can only be 25 pages long, these amicus briefs can present the court with a deeper analysis and cover topics that plaintiffs don’t have room to cover in their briefs.

Well written amicus briefs can make the difference between success and failure. But we need your help to get this done. Now!

The State knows the importance of amicus support. All of the anti-gun-owner “usual suspects” will file amicus briefs supporting the State; Everytown, Giffords, and Bloomberg among others. We also expect anti-gun blue state Attorneys General to weigh in, because they want to be able to pass similar laws in their states. So our efforts here will have national implications!  

There are several other cases in Illinois challenging PICA where courts have ruled against the plaintiffs and denied their request for an injunction. Those rulings have also been appealed. Some of the cases are already briefed, but the argument on those cases is also set for June 29 in Chicago.

PLEASE sign up below for updates from 2ALC, and contribute today to help support the plaintiffs in this case! GIVE TODAY!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required

BIG WIN in Barnett v. Raoul!

The US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted a preliminary injunction in the 2ALC-supported case of Barnett v. Raoul and other related lawsuits in Illinois that the state's unconstitutional new PICA law. Among other things, PICA bans the sale or transfer of any semi-automatic firearm designated by the state as an "assault weapon" and bans certain magazines based on their capacity. The PICA law is so restrictive that Illinois sheriffs even refused to implement it.

This injunction has already been appealed by the state, and the usual suspects from the gun ban lobby have already filed amicus briefs in support of the state.

Unfortunately, the Seventh Circuit court stayed the ruling granting the injunction until the appeal is decided, so the unconstitutional PICA law is in effect – for now.

 There are several other cases in Illinois challenging PICA where courts have ruled against the plaintiffs and denied their request for an injunction. Those rulings have also been appealed.

All these federal 2A cases are now consolidated in the Seventh Circuit, which has ordered all of the parties to submit their legal briefs on an expedited basis. The oral argument for all these cases is scheduled for the end of June in Chicago.  

2ALC is coordinating an amicus brief campaign supporting the pro-2A side, and these are due soon!

PLEASE sign up below for alerts from 2ALC and contribute today to help support the plaintiffs in this case! GIVE TODAY!

Keep me up to date in Illinois!

* indicates required