Updating List of IL Assault Weapons Ban Lawsuits

Currently there are 6 federal lawsuits in process against HB5471 Public Act 102-1116 a.k.a. the IL "Assault Weapons" Ban.

Here we will post, and hopefully regularly update, information on the Federal Court lawsuits in process against the Illinois “Assault Weapon” and Magazine ban. There is a lot going on, so we want to make it easier for us all to track. 

Update March 7, 2023 10:30 AM

Good news/ Bad news: 

Bad news: the Appeals Court ruling does not stay enforcement of the ban in our opinion.  We will not resume sales of banned items at this time. 

Good news:  The issues raised in this suit, and the court calendar mean that it will in no way interfere with our Federal Court action.  Oral arguments are scheduled for the 2nd week of May, by which time we should have Federal Court rulings in the California and Maryland AWB / Magazine cases as well as a high likelihood of preliminary injunction in our case.

Update March 2, 2023 5:08 PM

The Circuit Court of Appeals has found the act to be unconstitutional.  This appears to be a state-wide stay pending an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  We are working to confirm the applicability of this ruling outside of Macon County and will post more here when we know it.

Update March 2, 2023 11:35 AM

The State has filed it's response to the Motions for Preliminary injunction.  This response is consolidated under Barnett v Raoul below, and the filings are updated in the docket.  In the status hearing on Feb 24th, the Judge stated that he didn't want to be "papered to death" in this matter.  It is therefore somewhat unexpected that the State filed almost 1500 pages of newspaper clippings, copies of the legislation, interest-balancing expert testimony, and a wholly incomplete catalog of banned items.  This appears to be rather weak sauce.  We file our response, then the Judge conducts oral arguments on April 12.  

Use the Barnett v Raoul link for the filings at least until after the orals on April 12.

Update February 24, 2023 11:35 AM

Status hearing for the four cases in the Southern District before Judge McGlynn has concluded favorably.  The purpose of this hearing was to discuss consolidation of the cases and the procedural calendars.  Key take-aways:

• The four cases will be consolidated under Barnett v. Raoul (NSSF / Paul Clement). They will be heard together, though each plaintiff gets to argue their case.
• State's response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction due March 2.  (This response includes the "illustrative examples of every item banned under this act).
• Plaintiffs responses to the State's response is limited to 15 pages each, due March 23. We requested this to respond to what the state claims are analogs and the comprehensive or not nature of their illustrative examples. Reply briefs are normally disfavored in this Court, so this is a plus for us.
• Oral arguments April 12, limited to one hour each for plaintiffs and State (2 hours total).  Ruling on Preliminary Injunction (halts enforcement of the Act) expected shortly after that.

This Judge is building a comprehensive record in this case as it will likely go up on appeal.  Everything "wrong" with how the other cases are proceeding or being argued is "right" here.

Dockets and case details below will be updated as time allows today.

Update February 17, 2023 7:30 PM

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order denied.  This is the same Judge who was overturned by the Appellate court TWICE in Ezell.  Read the decision: she bought into all the Gun Control jibber jabber and dismissed Bruen.  Her decision also finds no basis for a stay in the State law.  This should have no bearing on our cases in the Southern district. 

Update February 16, 2023 2:00 PM

The State's request for extended time to respond to FFL-IL v Pritzker Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.  Their response is due March 2.

ORDER denying 31 MOTION for Extension of Time. This case is one of four with a preliminary injunction pending regarding the constitutionality of Illinois HB 5471, which is codified at 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9. Although these cases have not been consolidated, the Court wishes to keep them on a similar timetable. Additionally, the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, who recently entered in this case, represents the state defendants in the other three matters that have deadlines of February 28th, March 1st and March 2nd, respectively, so there is no hardship by denying this extension. As such, defendants shall respond to 28 First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction on or before March 2, 2023. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/16/2023. (jce) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/16/2023)

Update February 13, 2023 12:00 PM

Judge McGynn issued the following Order to the defendant in three or four of the cases he has in the Southern District (the dockets haven't all been updated, but we expect the order to be entered in all four cases):  

Feb 13, 2023 - ORDER: Within the response to 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants shall provide illustrative examples of each and every item banned under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/13/2023. (jce)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/13/2023)

This is a huge win and a validation of the FFL-IL ILGRA approach to go after guns and parts in the first suit.  The scope of this ban is so huge as to render most legally-owned firearms illegal or un-repairable.

-de

---

We will not be addressing the various county court cases that have resulted in Temporary Restraining Orders for the named plaintiffs as they do not apply to all IL residents.

We are looking to receive injunctive relief while these cases are litigated.

That relief (Preliminary Injunction) would prevent the State from enforcing the "Assault Weapons" Ban until the cases are decided. We are confident of obtaining that relief because of the four tests:

1. Is the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits? YES
   • Court Precedent is on our side.
   • The Supreme Court remanded back to the lower courts similar laws last summer
2. Is the plaintiff likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief? YES
   • No Parts = No ability to repair
     
   • No Purchase = no ability to lawfully possess
   • Right to possess implies right to purchase (IL Firearms Retailers vs Chicago 2014)
   • Retailers may lose their businesses, and employees their jobs, while this is being litigated
3. The balance of equities favors plaintiff? YES, but it doesn't matter
   • Balance of equities is how a court determines which side will prevail
   • Example: public benefit versus individual hardship
   • Bruen discarded that sort of interest-balancing last summer
4. The injunction is in the public interest? YES
   • It protects the lawful behavior covered by the second amendment.

Several of the cases, including the FFL-IL v Pritzker which we are involved in, have been assigned to Judge Stephen P. McGlynn. The cases right now are consolidated but not combined, which means each will be argued separately, possibly on the same days. Generally the timing will be for a hearing to determine the preliminary injunction in late March or Early April.

The cases: 

Harrel v Raoul January 17, 2023

• Plaintiffs: Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition
• Scope: Guns, Mags Illinois AWB
• Court: Us District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Judge McGlynn
• Status: State's verbose response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed.
• Next Action: Reply briefs March 23; hearing on MPI April 12; decision late April

Langley et al v Kelly. Thomas Maag January 13, 2023

• Plaintiffs: Various Individuals
• Scope: State Constitution Procedural Issues on how the Act was passed; Federal 2^nd 5^th and 14^th amendment issues
• Court: Circuit Court Crawford County.  Elevated to District Court for Southern District Judge McGlynn
• Status: State's verbose response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed.
• Next Action: Reply briefs March 23; hearing on MPI April 12; decision late April
  
  

Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v Pritzker January 24, 2023

• Plaintiffs: Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Guns Save Life, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation
• Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Judge McGlynn
• Scope: Guns, Parts
• Status: State's verbose response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed.
• Next Action: Reply briefs March 23; hearing on MPI April 12; decision late April
  
  

Barnett v Raoul January 24, 2023

• Plaintiffs: National Shooting Sports Foundation
• Court: Us District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Judge McGlynn
• Scope: Guns, Mags
• Status: State's verbose response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed.
• Next Action: Reply briefs March 23; hearing on MPI April 12; decision late April
  
  

Kenneally v Raoul January 27, 2023

• Plaintiffs: McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally
• Scope: Enforcement of unconstitutional act
• Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Status: ?
• Next Action: ?

National Association for Gun Rights et al v Naperville September 7, 2022

• Plaintiff: Law Weapons Naperville, IL
• Scope: Naperville AWB for sales and Illinois AWB Guns, Mags, Parts
• Court: US District Court for the Northern District Judge Kendall
• Status: Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied. Appeal MPI decision to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Next Action: 8-12 weeks minimum.