FFL-IL v. Pritzker Brief Filed in 7th Circuit
On June 6th, a response brief was filed by Michel & Associates in the FFL-IL v. Pritzker case at the 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Having lost in the district court, the State of Illinois filed for appeal in the 7th Circuit to have the judgement of District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn overturned. Judge McGlynn’s judgement is currently stayed pending the outcome of the Appeals trial.
The brief joins and adopts all of the arguments made in the main Barnett response brief, and covers three consequential elements.
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT PICA’S FIREARMS AND PARTS BANS VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT PICA’S RESTRICTION ON FIREARM PARTS VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT PICA’S REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The first argument is the most broadly scoped and highly publicized, and the Barnett brief does a commendable job of articulating why it is unconstitutional, the FFL-IL brief includes arguments from the DAYS OLD Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services Supreme Court opinion. This decision talked about the impropriety of lower courts creating “[a]textual and ahistorical judge created rules”. In their preliminary in junction in the combined Barnett cases and in the prior Friedman case the 7th Circuit judges did exactly that, created a test from whole cloth that directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s dicta in Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen. This opinion SHOULD carry great impact in seeing the silly and completely illegitimate “civilian v. military use” test abandoned and revert back to the “In common use for lawful purposes” test.
Additionally, the FFL-IL brief addresses the statement in the June 5th UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISION IN Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos declaring that:
… “AR-15 rifles, AK- 47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles, are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. []The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.”
Clearly, having this in a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court should burry any doubt as to whether or not the rifles, even .50 Cal rifles, are widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers for lawful purposes. A reasonable person might think that wording alone would grant victory, but remember, this is the 7th Circuit where common sense 2A arguments go to die.
The second argument is a reminder that Judge McGlynn found in the Barnett decision that firearm parts were protected under the Second Amendment. It is also a reminder of the Ezell v. City of Chicago victory and extends that ruling to argue that,
”without component parts, so too could firearms be rendered useless or significantly neutered. Indeed, if government could restrict firearm parts unchecked, it would have the power to restrict protected firearms by targeting their critical parts, as Illinois has done with PICA.”
Finally the third element of the FFL-IL brief is a reminder that the district court found that FIREARMS REGISTRATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The combined Barnett case is the ONLY case in the nation that has been able to successfully make that case and win. It is an argument that the FFL-IL organization championed and Judge McGlynn ultimately agreed with. In this brief, FFL-IL reminds the 7th Circuit Judges that:
That is because there is no historical tradition of registering arms. Indeed, there can be no historical tradition of registering arms with the government when one of the Second Amendment’s main purposes was to be a “doomsday provision” for the People to protect themselves from a tyrannical government (citation omitted).. The history showing this was the mainstream understanding of the Second Amendment is so overwhelming as to be beyond debate—even discussed in schoolbooks of the 19th century. As a result, our nation’s historical tradition has been to maintain privacy around firearm ownership.
SADEC is thrilled to continue to be able to support cutting edge legal analysis like you see in the FFL-IL response brief. The attorneys at Michel & Associates burned the midnight oil to include the most recent SCOTUS rulings in this brief and get it in on time. SADEC can only support cases like this with your support.
As I wrote to you last week, the chances for the Barnett consolidated cases gong to SCOTUS have increased dramatically with the court’s denial of cert. in Snope and Ocean State Tactical (both now dead and not ruled in favor of the Second Amendment at the Appellate level). SCOTUS is signaling they are watching these cases and SADEC needs to be able to assist. Consider a $25 monthly donation, it helps us to plan our support budget and is an affordable way for you to make a difference!