What’s Happening With PICA

Here is the status of our lawsuit against the State regarding the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) as of early September 2024 and how we expect the fight against the IL “Assault Weapons” Ban to proceed in the coming months.

Timeline Past:

1. January 10, 2023: Governor Pritzker Signed the Act. Our group organized and filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court Southern District of Illinois. The case is being heard by Judge McGlynn.
2. April 28, 2023, our motion for a Preliminary Injunction was granted, halting enforcement of the Act. A return to selling and transferring prohibited items ensued, and the State appealed to the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA7).
3. May 5, 2023, Judge Frank Easterbrook granted the State’s emergency motion for a stay of our injunction. Sales and transfers stopped again. A hearing before an Appeals Panel of CA7 was scheduled for June 29. 
4. November 3, CA7 panel ruled against us, sending the cases back to Judge McGlynn for a trial on the merits.
5. February 23, 2024: Judge McGlynn issued an order with respect to scheduling and discovery conference. 

Timeline Future

1. September 16, 2024 is the start of the trial. We expect a ruling by mid October. Loser will likely appeal to CA7.
2. January - March 2025 we expect oral arguments before CA7 and a ruling by May. The oral arguments will be heard by the same 3 Judge panel that denied our injunction last summer. If we lose, we will seek certiorari with the US Supreme Court (SCOTOC).
3. October 2025 - May 2026 is the term for SCOTUS, and if we are heard there, we should expect a ruling by the end of June 2026.

The Cases: our current and future activity-

There are cases in both the Northern and Southern District of Illinois, but only the southern district cases are being heard right now.  The FFL-IL plaintiffs have been very active in preparation for this trial:

• Preparing briefs
• Identifying and retaining expert witnesses
• Deposing expert witnesses
• Amicus briefs in other 2A cases. 

Our group is represented by Michel & Associates, which has a long history of successful litigation in this area.  Working in conjunction with the other legal teams, our team has led the way in trial court preparation and litigation.

This is a Team Effort! Our group is on the ground doing the grunt work.  The Barnett (NSSF) team has the best possible 2A Supreme Court team, led by former Solicitor General of the United States Paul Clement.

Our legal team is building the most robust record in the trial court that has ever been built against so-called “Assault Weapons” bans and magazine limits.

This record is important for at least two reasons.

1. Judge Easterbrook’s and Wood’s order rejecting our injunction leans heavily on the notion that an AR-15 patterned rifle is a military weapon, or at least a close cousin to one, and therefore banning possession is OK.  We believe this absurd claim to be easy to refute via our expert witnesses’s testimony and depositions of theirs.
2. If we win again with McGlynn, the trial record will include not only common-use, text-history and tradition rebuttals, but also a rebuttal of this “military-ish” standard.

So we either succeed in convincing Easterbrook and Wood that they were wrong in their preliminary analysis, or we present a strong record for other cases to deploy at the appellate or supreme court level.

Other Cases that Matter to Your Gun Rights

There are some 10 other states with current or planned “Assault Weapons” Bans. This needs to stop, and it may stop only at the US Supreme Court. Two important ones are Bianchi (Maryland) and Duncan (California).

Bianchi was remanded to the Fourth Circuit as part of the Bruen decision in 2022.  It was heard by a three judge panel, and two of those judges apparently found the Maryland ban unconstitutional.  The third judge did not submit a dissent as is usual, so the case sat for a year in what the majority judges have described as a “pocket veto.”  Dirty pool.  Then the full en-banc CA4 took up the case, and the majority took Judge Easterbrook’s “logic” and amped it up to “11”: military use, very dangerous, etc, etc. A strong record and a win in the District Court provides SCOTUS something to point to if Bianchi is heard.

While our suit does not address magazines, the cases with which it has been combined do.  So just as in the Bianchi case, our success helps two cases, one with and one near final judgment at the Circuit Court level win at SCOTUS.

If these cases are not heard in the next session, ours are the furthest along.  That’s why it’s important to keep the pressure up here.  We are fighting to preserve 2A rights for Illinois gun owners, and by doing so, we are fighting to protect all Americans’ gun rights. This tortured, emotional “reasoning” by the lower courts must stop, or it will continue to creep in and take your rights.

This is an expensive fight.  We have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars raised from Illinois dealers, manufacturers, distributors, and gun owners.  We need to do that again. We anticipate needing an additional $250,000 if this goes all the way to SCOTUS.  We anticipate needing an additional $125,000 to get this back in front of CA7.  Your support is essential to this effort, and we will be publishing an honor roll of those that contributed who wish to be identified.  Be on the right side of the biggest civil rights battle we are engaged in today!

How can you help us continue this fight?

Please support our efforts through FFL-IL if you are able to at the donation links below. Thank you!

FFL-IL is a 501(c)4 not-for-profit corporation. Membership fees, contributions or gifts to FFL-IL are not tax deductible as charitable contributions. However, they may be tax deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. Please consult your tax advisor.