An attorney representing gun dealers and owners on Monday said in court Monday that an Illinois law banning semi-automatic guns like the AR-15 violates the right of many “law-abiding citizens throughout the state” to shoot recreationally, hunt and defend themselves.
He made the argument as part of opening statements at the start of a federal trial in East St. Louis over Illinois’ assault weapons ban, in which U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn will decide whether the nearly two-year-old law violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In his opening statement, Christopher Wells with the Illinois attorney general’s office recalled the 2022 Highland Park mass shooting, where the suspected gunman used an AR-15-style weapon to shoot into a Fourth of July Parade, killing seven and wounding dozens more.
Since Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law on Jan. 10, 2023, gun rights advocates and elected officials filed a flurry of litigation in both state and federal courts, with appeals going up to the U.S. Supreme Court — which declined to take up the case in July.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case was one of several court losses for opponents of the ban. However, those losses were only temporary, and this week’s trial is the first time a judge will weigh the question of whether the law is constitutional. It is still possible the case could make it to the nation’s highest court, in fact Justice Clarence Thomas said the court needs to offer more guidance “on which weapons the Second Amendment covers.”
Plaintiffs had tried to pause enforcement of the Illinois law as the courts consider its constitutionality. McGlynn granted a preliminary injunction on the ban in April 2023, but the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on that order less than a week later. The appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, denied another attempt for injunctive relief in November of that year, with Judge Diane Wood writing that semi-automatic guns are like military-style weapons, and therefore do not fall under “arms” protected under the Second Amendment.
But in his opening statement, plaintiff’s attorney Andrew Lothson of Chicago said these guns are not exclusively nor predominantly used in military contexts. Lothson said the law bans many popular shotguns, “including those used right here in Southern Illinois for duck hunting.”
Wells, however, pointed to the 7th Circuit Court ruling, which said the AR-15 is not materially different from the M-16 fully-automatic rifle used in the military. A 2008 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller case found that states can restrict citizens from owning guns used in the military. Wells also said a gun’s popularity in sales “tells us nothing about Americans’ actual self-defense needs.”
The first witness on Monday was Scott Pulaski, a gun dealer in downstate East Alton. Pulaski testified that much of the weapons he sells at his shop, Piasa Armory, are guns and magazines banned under the law. The law makes exemptions for people who are in the military or law enforcement. But Pulaski said most of his customers don’t fall into the exempt categories, and his overall sales since the law took effect have dropped by 30%.
McGlynn’s questions were geared toward showing Pulaski’s shop has a strict background-check process for its customers, confirming with Pulaski that his customers were buying banned guns to “protect their homes, protect their families.”
“Common people own these guns,” Pulaski told WBEZ in an interview.“It’s not issued out to the military. These are things that people buy for lawful purposes.”
Next to take the witness stand, called by the plaintiffs, was military expert Jeffrey Eby. Eby serves as the chairperson of the Marine Gunner Association and served in the Marines for 11 years before working on military weapons research.
He testified that the 7th Circuit’s characterization that semi-automatic guns are similar to those used in the military is false. He said service members are issued fully-automatic rifles, like the M27, because they are able to fire more rounds per second. And Eby testified that as a civilian, he would use an AR-15 for home defense.
“I disagree with this premise that they can disarm the populace and force us to be victims,” Eby told WBEZ in an interview after his testimony.
Wells, in his cross-examination, said a 9mm handgun, which is commonly used by law enforcement officers, is enough to incapacitate a potential home invader until the police arrive.
Both parties are scheduled to be back in court Tuesday morning to resume testimony.