In a 4-to-3 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on certain semi-automatic rifles and “large capacity magazines” in a decision released on Aug. 11.
The court ruled that the law does not violate the Illinois Constitution’s equal protection or three-reading requirement for special legislation.
The 34-page decision expressly did not rule on the law’s Second Amendment implications.
The plaintiffs, Decatur Jewelry, Law Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County, and individuals Dan Caulkins and Perry Lewin, claimed the law denied them equal protection under the law and that the legislative process violated the state’s requirement that a bill has three public readings before it is passed.
No one from Decatur Jewelry returned calls or text messages seeking comment.
The majority opinion stated that the plaintiffs did not raise any direct Second Amendment issues because equal protection and the right to keep and bear arms are separate legal concepts.
Courts in Effingham County and Macon County had ruled the law unconstitutional.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul appealed against those decisions to the Supreme Court. His office did not return calls for comment.
According to the court, the plaintiffs claimed the law set seven exempt classes based on their occupations in law enforcement, security services, and the military. The court ruled that this does not violate equal protection because the exemption applies only to their professional duties.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law in January 2023.
It was implemented on Jan. 11 and passed on a final vote of 68–41. The Act bans certain types of semiautomatic rifles and magazines that hold more than 12 rounds of ammunition.
The act defines a so-called “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and features a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, a barrel shroud, or other features.
A semiautomatic pistol that accepts a detachable magazine or may be modified to accept one has a threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, or other features also falls into this category, as do most AK and AR-style rifles. Also banned are .50-caliber firearms.
Existing firearms are grandfathered in under the law if the owners register them and pay a fee. Under the Act, the term of an Illinois Firearms Restraining Order (FRO) law is extended from six months to one year. The list of people who could ask the court for a FRO was also expanded.
A FRO, also known as a “red flag law,” authorizes the confiscation of firearms owned by people who may pose a risk to themselves or others. Gun rights supporters oppose these laws as they may not provide adequate due process protection.
The act also increases the age to obtain a firearm owner identification card (FOID) to 21. People younger than 21 can receive a FOID card if a parent or guardian signs it.
The law would make exceptions for people younger than 21 serving in the U.S. military or Illinois National Guard.
Act Inspired by Mass Shooting
On his webpage, state Rep. Bob Morgan, a Democrat, wrote that he was motivated to sponsor the act after a mass shooting on July 4, 2022.In that shooting, a 22-year-old man opened fire during a July 4 parade in Highland Park, Illinois. He reportedly killed seven people and wounded dozens more.
Most of Illinois’s county sheriffs and several state attorneys publicly opposed the law.
Several sheriffs made social media posts and issued public statements calling the law unconstitutional and vowing not to enforce it.
In response, Pritzker said he would take any legal actions available to enforce the law.
The law has also been challenged in federal court.
On April 28, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn in East St. Louis ruled the ban was unconstitutional—because it restricted a person’s right to defend themselves. He issued an injunction.
On May 4, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that injunction.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene, so the law remains in force while the Seventh Circuit reviews the case.
