Staff Reports
In a recent case challenging Illinois’ gun and magazine ban, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is reviewing consolidated cases against the state’s restrictions. The case was heard by a three-judge panel on June 29. However, recent rulings in other states, such as Hawaii and California, could also have an impact on the outcome of this case.
Illinois gun rights groups ask appeals court to review Texas pistol brace ruling https://t.co/oI2xaaA6Wr via @thecentersquare
— Bishop On Air (@BishopOnAir) October 4, 2023
Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde argues that these rulings provide additional support for their challenge in Illinois. The rulings in Hawaii and California emphasize that certain weapons are not considered dangerous or unusual and that gunsmithing is a common practice. Vandermyde claims that these arguments contradict the state’s position, and a federal judge has validated their lawsuit while undermining the state’s arguments.
Plaintiffs in the Illinois case have requested that the appeals court judges take note of the recent ruling against the ATF’s pistol brace rule in Texas. They argue that the court should consider this ruling as well as the cases from Hawaii and California. Vandermyde expresses confidence that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals understands its responsibility in this matter.
However, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office has filed a response with the appeals court, highlighting that the Ninth Circuit has already placed a stay on the California magazine ban decision. They argue that this decision conflicts with other rulings on restricting large-capacity magazines.
Raoul’s office also points out that the Hawaii butterfly knife case is not directly relevant to the Illinois lawsuit because it deals with blades, whereas Illinois’ law pertains to firearms. They argue that the court should focus on whether accessories like large-capacity magazines are considered “arms” and whether specific types of firearms, such as assault weapons, are included in the ban.
Overall, this case is still ongoing, and it remains to be seen how the recent rulings in other states will impact the final decision. However, it is clear that both parties are actively arguing their positions and attempting to convince the court in their favor.
