U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn could issue his verdict in the multiple challenges to Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines as early as Monday of next week, and Second Amendment advocates across the state are hopeful that McGlynn will declare the bans a violation of the Second Amendment. 

At the conclusion of the bench trial on September 19th, McGlynn indicated he’d issue his ruling in about a month, and the Center Square’s Greg Bishop reports that gun owners and gun sellers are already prepping if McGlynn issues a permanent injunction against the gun and magazine ban. 

Nicole Guvenoz with GAT Guns in East Dundee said the store is ready to deliver firearms to customers who bought them last year but couldn’t pick them up if McGlynn issues a permanent injunction against the law.

“We only need a cleared check, we don’t need a full 72 hour background check because they have already entered into the contract for the purchase of the sale of the gun,” Guvenoz told The Center Square. 

It’s a different story for Robert Bevis of Law Weapons in Naperville.

“That small freedom week that we did have on that injunction was only for the state of Illinois, that particular case. It did not affect the local ordinance in Naperville and that’s what’s been keeping us tied down here,” Bevis told The Center Square. 

Illinois enacted the ban on more than 170 semiautomatic handguns and rifles and magazines over a certain capacity during lame duck session in January 2023.

Despite the state’s ban on semi-automatic firearms like the popular AR-15, Guvenoz said they actually have seen increased sales the past few months at GAT Guns.

“Obviously, mostly handguns, but we are seeing a lot of compliant rifles come out now from different manufacturers, so people are really excited to be able to buy rifles again,” she said.

Bevis, who’s a named plaintiff in a lawsuit specifically challenging the municipal ban in Naperville, told Bishop that sales are still down at his shop, but he too is hopeful that McGlynn will issue a verdict that will once again allow him to offer some of the most popular and common rifles in the country to his customers. 

McGlynn previously issued a temporary injunction against the Illinois gun and magazine ban, but that decision was overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals when a three-judge panel ruled that the state’s ban was likely to be upheld because, according to them, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “militaristic” weapons. 

The Supreme Court declined to act on an interlocutory appeal by the plaintiffs, but the Seventh Circuit’s decision drew a sharp rebuke by Justice Thomas, who called the appellate court’s ruling “unmoored from both text and history.”

In my view, Illinois’ ban is “highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.” It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

During September’s bench trial, attorneys from AG Kwame Raoul’s office relied heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s opinion to defend the gun and magazine ban, but McGlynn didn’t appear to buy into the idea that semi-automatic AR-15s should be treated the same as fully automatic machine guns. 

McGlynn said he wasn’t sure why the case was in East St. Louis when it first began last year, but later reflected on that question. On Thursday, he urged people to visit the “sacred sites” in East St. Louis from the race riots that happened there in 1917. More than 30 Black people were killed and dozens of structures destroyed in fires. 

“Black owned houses were set on fire one by one as people escaped to other houses that were burned,” he said. “During the course of the riot, some Blacks were armed, shooting back and rioters went to the National Guard and said ‘that’s not fair.’ The Guard gave safe passage to some victims across Eads Bridge.”

He shared a picture showing the current federal courthouse then surrounded by burned buildings and asked how that would have been different if the Black victims had such firearms.

Afterward, plaintiffs’ attorney David Sigale said that resonated with why he got involved in Second Amendment issues.

“There’s countless stories of people victimized, whether it’s for race or their gender,” Sigale said outside the courthouse Thursday.

McGlynn also noted the history of the 1921 race riot in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He even noted a recent video showing an international gang in Aurora, Colorado, going into an apartment building with high powered rifles.

“That video occurred 30 days after the police were called,” McGlynn said. “They were on their own. Maybe a child was hiding under their bed. ‘Mom, are the bad guys gone?’”

After comments like that, I’d be downright shocked in McGlynn ruled in favor of the state’s prohibition of commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines, and I don’t think the judge is likely to dawdle in issuing his decision. Hopefully, by this time next week Judge McGlynn’s decision will have been unveiled and Illinois gun owners will once again be able to purchase some of the most popular firearms in the country. If he does strike down the law, though, look for the Seventh Circuit to insert itself as quickly as possible, which means any relief McGlynn provides might be short-lived and stayed by the appellate court after Illinois launches an appeal.