Beloit Rifle Club
Founded in 1925, our club is affiliated with the NRA, and supports a varety of shooting sports and marksmanship activities for our members from the Southern WI/Northern IL stateline area.
Beloit Rifle Club
Founded in 1925, our club is affiliated with the NRA, and supports a varety of shooting sports and marksmanship activities for our members from the Southern WI/Northern IL stateline area.
Constitutional Rights

PICA – Unconstitutional

Published

Judge Stephen McGlynn, in his 168-page ruling, declared the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Here are the key points from his judgment:

  1. Unconstitutional Affront: McGlynn described PICA as an “unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment,” arguing that it infringes on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
  2. Common Use: He emphasized that the firearms and magazines banned by PICA are commonly owned and used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense and other lawful purposes, which makes their prohibition particularly disturbing.
  3. Military Use: McGlynn rejected the state’s argument that the banned firearms are akin to military-style weapons. He stated that “military use” refers to weapons issued for combat, not the types of firearms prohibited by PICA.
  4. Historical Tradition: The judge found that the nation’s history and tradition do not support such an expansive regulation as PICA, which affects hundreds of models of weapons and magazines.
  5. Registration Requirement: The law’s requirement for registration of previously legally owned firearms was also criticized, noting that it essentially criminalizes ownership of these firearms without registration.
  6. Permanent Injunction: McGlynn issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of PICA, but he stayed this injunction for 30 days to allow the state to appeal.
  7. Public Safety vs. Rights: While acknowledging the government’s interest in public safety, McGlynn argued that this cannot justify the deprivation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, particularly when the firearms in question have legitimate purposes beyond criminal use.

This ruling reflects a comprehensive assessment where the judge found that PICA overstepped constitutional bounds by broadly banning firearms and accessories that are widely used for legal activities.

See the Ruling

The Stay…

Yes, Judge Stephen McGlynn did issue a stay on his ruling regarding the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA). Here’s an explanation of what this means:

  • Issuance of the Stay: Judge McGlynn issued a stay on the permanent injunction he handed down against PICA. This stay, set for 30 days, means that his injunction, which would stop the enforcement of PICA, is temporarily suspended.
  • Reason for the Stay: The purpose of the stay is to allow the state of Illinois time to appeal his decision without the immediate effect of his ruling taking place. This ensures that PICA remains in effect while the appeal process is underway, thus maintaining the status quo in law enforcement and public policy concerning firearms.
  • Effect During the Stay:
  • PICA continues to be the law of the land in Illinois for the duration of the stay.
  • Firearms owners are still required to comply with PICA’s provisions, including any registration requirements or prohibitions on certain types of weapons and accessories.
  • Law enforcement agencies continue to enforce PICA as they have been.
  • Legal Implications:
  • For the State: It provides Illinois with an opportunity to seek review from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals without the immediate legal and practical consequences of McGlynn’s ruling.
  • For the Plaintiffs: They must wait for the appeal process to conclude before seeing any relief from PICA’s restrictions, unless they can successfully argue for the stay to be lifted earlier.
  • Next Steps:
  • The state would file an appeal within the 30-day window.
  • Following the appeal, the higher court will decide whether to uphold or overturn McGlynn’s ruling. If the Seventh Circuit disagrees with McGlynn, PICA would continue to be enforced. If they agree, then the stay would be lifted, and the injunction would take effect, effectively nullifying PICA.

This stay reflects a common judicial practice to allow for an orderly appeal process, giving both parties time to prepare and argue their case at a higher level of the judicial system while ensuring that the public does not face immediate upheaval in policy enforcement.

What’s next…

Following Judge Stephen McGlynn’s ruling against the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA):

  1. Appeal by the State: Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, or the state, has indicated an intent to appeal the decision. The appeal would likely go to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Appeal Process: The state would file a notice of appeal within the time frame allowed by federal rules, generally 30 days from the entry of the judgment. During this appeal, the state would argue that the lower court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and its application to PICA was incorrect.
  • Stay on Injunction: Since McGlynn issued a 30-day stay on his permanent injunction, PICA remains in effect during this appeal period, giving the state time to prepare its appeal without immediate change in law enforcement.
  1. Seventh Circuit Review:
  • Review and Hearing: The Seventh Circuit will review the case, potentially scheduling oral arguments where both sides present their case.
  • Decision: The Seventh Circuit could:
    • Uphold McGlynn’s decision, effectively keeping the injunction in place and declaring PICA unconstitutional.
    • Overturn McGlynn’s ruling, allowing PICA to remain in effect, arguing that it does align with Second Amendment rights or historical tradition.
    • Remand the case back to the lower court with instructions, possibly for further proceedings or clarification on specific issues.
  1. Further Appeals:
  • If the Seventh Circuit’s decision is unfavorable to the state or the plaintiffs, either party can request an en banc hearing (rehearing by the entire court) or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • U.S. Supreme Court: Should the case reach the Supreme Court, it could choose to hear the case or not. If heard, the Supreme Court’s decision would be final, setting a precedent for similar laws nationwide.
  1. Legislative Response: Depending on the outcome:
  • Illinois Legislature: If PICA is upheld as unconstitutional, the state legislature might draft new legislation that attempts to address the constitutional issues raised by the courts while still aiming to control firearms they consider dangerous.
  • Federal Level: This case’s outcome could influence gun legislation discussions at the federal level, especially if there’s a push for national standards or reforms based on how these legal interpretations affect state laws.
  1. Public and Political Reaction:
  • There will likely be significant public discourse, potential lobbying efforts, and political maneuvering depending on the rulings, which could influence public opinion, future elections, and policy.
  1. Compliance and Enforcement: Depending on the final legal outcome, there might be periods of confusion regarding compliance with or enforcement of PICA. Citizens and law enforcement would need to adjust to the legal landscape as it develops.

The process from here involves these legal steps, which could take months or even years, considering the complexity and the stakes involved in Second Amendment jurisprudence.