I'm someone who thinks all gun control laws are unconstitutional, but I also understand that a lot of people disagree. Since the Bruen decision suggests some are acceptable, at least in the minds of the Founding Fathers, it's pretty clear that even some ostensibly pro-gun folks figure there needs to be a line.
But if and when a gun control law, or any law, is deemed unconstitutional, enforcement of that law should stop immediately. That's not a controversial opinion. Yet, Illinois asked a judge to ignore all that and let the state keep enforcing a law should it be found unconstitutional.
Currently, the state's magazine ban is being challenged. These things happen, after all, and no one is shocked that it is. There's also reason to believe that the ban won't be upheld because, well, there's no analog from the time of the nation's founding to suggest the Founding Fathers were down with such a restriction – and since repeating arms did exist, it's at least plausible they'd have thought of it.
But the state also wants the judge to allow enforcement of that law regardless of what he rules:
Attorneys representing defendants Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul filed 3,585 pages of exhibits and arguments Monday.
Among the state's closing arguments are that restricted items “were designed for military combat,” “far exceeds what is commonly used for self-defense” and the law “responds to unprecedented societal concerns.”
“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a permanent injunction because they have not prevailed on their claims,” one filing from the state says. “If the Court disagrees, however, any injunction it enters must be limited in scope and should be stayed pending review by appellate courts.”
Plaintiffs argue the law violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and runs afoul of precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court that any law restricting access to firearms must fit in the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment.
Of course, none of the state's closing arguments give anyone any reason to uphold the restriction. Despite that, they want the judge to stay his decision – after he's already issued an injunction on enforcing the law in the first place – even if he finds it to be unconstitutional.
Now, this isn't unusual, necessarily, but it usually involves keeping the status quo intact until the courts have had all the say they want. What Illinois is demanding is the opportunity to enforce an unconstitutional gun control law, at least for as long as possible.
This takes cajones, in my view.
It sounds like they know they're going to lose, they're just hoping they can keep the law on the books long enough to find someone to uphold the restriction. They want to infringe on people's rights for as long as possible, even if it doesn't hold in the long term.
It's disgusting, really.
But then again, this is Illinois, a state that has given up any pretense of caring about people's rights and instead enjoys infringing as much as possible, then blaming everyone else when their gun control schemes fail.
Nothing about this should be surprising.
