Judge Allows Temporary Restraining Order on Ill. Gun Ban

In response to a lawsuit that alleges Illinois lawmakers violated the state constitution in passing a law to ban certain semiautomatic weapons, a circuit court judge in Effingham County Friday ordered a temporary restraining order on the new law.

The ruling only goes into effect for the 866 plaintiffs involved in the suit, which includes gun shops and gun owners from across the state.

A preliminary injunction hearing was set for Feb. 1.

RELATED:

Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge Joshua Morrison ordered that "any administrative agency or law enforcement agency" should not "enforce any and all elements" of the law regarding the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"This Court finds that the Defendants unequivocally and egregiously violated the Three Readings Rule of the Illinois Constitution in order to circumvent the Constitutional requirements and avoid public discourse," Morrison wrote in his 11-page order. "This Court finds that, due to the blatant disregard for Constitutional Law, the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this claim."

"We disagree with the court's decision," Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a statement. "We have filed a notice of appeal and will ask the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the TRO."

Gov. J.B. Pritzker released a statement saying he believes the court system would eventually allow the ban.

"This decision is not surprising. Although disappointing, it is the initial result we've seen in many cases brought by plaintiffs whose goal is to advance ideology over public safety," Pritzker said in a news release. "We are well aware that this is only the first step in defending this important legislation. I remain confident that the courts will uphold the constitutionality of Illinois' law, which aligns with the eight other states with similar laws and was written in collaboration with lawmakers, advocates, and legal experts.

"Illinoisans have a right to feel safe in their front yards, at school, while eating at bars and restaurants or celebrating with their family and friends. The Protect Illinois Communities Act takes weapons of war and mass destruction off the street while allowing law-abiding gun owners to retain their collections. I look forward to the next steps in this case and receiving the decision this case merits," he said.

Bond County attorney Tom DeVore asked for the restraining order when he filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Effingham County alleging that when lawmakers passed the weapons ban law, they violated the state constitutional rights of gun owners.

Lawyers for Pritzker, who signed the law on Jan. 10, and Raoul have argued that the law was passed properly and did not violate the state constitution.

DeVore's lawsuit does not address rights within the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but other lawsuits filed this week in federal court in Southern Illinois and in Crawford County do.

The new state law, which was known as House Bill 5471, bans the manufacture, purchase and sale of certain semiautomatic weapons, as well as large-capacity magazines and .50-caliber rifles.

The law, which is titled the Protect Illinois Communities Act, also requires people to register their semiautomatic weapons with the state.

Along with Pritzker and Raoul, the lawsuit also listed House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch and Senate President Don Harmon as defendants. Welch and Harmon could not be reached for comment.

Constitutional arguments

Morrison conducted a hearing on the case Wednesday.

Here are arguments regarding the state constitutional complaints alleged in the Effingham County lawsuit and statements from Morrison on the issues:

— The law violates the "single issue rule of the Illinois Constitution," according to the lawsuit.

House Bill 5471 "originated as an act making very modest changes" to the Illinois Insurance Code regarding contracts, according to the lawsuit. Amendments were made to the bill on "numerous unrelated subjects as compared to the original act," the suit alleges.

Attorneys for Pritzker and Raoul denied this allegation.

"Their single-subject challenge fails because every provision in the Act relates to a single subject: the regulation of firearms," their motion states.

Morrison stated that the plaintiffs "have raised a question that has a fair likelihood of success of proving the Defendants violated the single subject requirement by choosing an overbroad original title that was used to allow them to circumvent the normal Legislative process."

— The law violates the "equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution," according to the suit.

The law does not apply to some people, including law enforcement officers, "qualified retired" law enforcement officers and members of the military while performing their official duties.

The lawsuit alleges these exemptions are "indisputably in violation of the Plaintiffs equal rights to be treated the same as their fellow citizens who are similarly situated in regard to their individual and fundamental constitutional rights to bear arms for self-defense."

In response, the attorneys for Pritzker and Raoul state "The Act's exceptions for professionals with specialized firearms training and experience, such as law enforcement and members of the military, easily survive rational basis scrutiny."

Morrison wrote that "The Court cannot find it logical that a warden of a prison (included in the exempted persons category) is necessarily better trained or more experienced in the handling of weapons than retired military personnel (not included in the exempted persons category)."

He stated that he believes the plaintiffs have shown a "likelihood of success in relation to the equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution."

— The law violates the "three readings clause of the Illinois Constitution." The lawsuit alleges the Senate read the amended bill once and that it was "not read all in the House."

However, the attorneys for Pritzker and Raoul stated that the state constitution allows the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to certify a bill and that the Supreme Court has ruled this process can stop "all litigation challenging certified legislation for failure to comply with the three readings requirement."

Morrison wrote that "due to the blatant disregard for Constitutional Law" regarding the three readings clause, the plaintiffs likely would succeed on this allegation.

— The law violates the "due process clause of the Illinois Constitution," according to the lawsuit.

The attorneys for Pritzker and Raoul raised several issues against this allegation. "Courts have rejected attempts to base due process claims on an alleged infringement of the right to bear arms, as Plaintiffs do here," their motion states.

But Morrison wrote that the plaintiffs likely could prove the General Assembly did not follow the due process clause of the state constitution.

"In oral arguments, the Defendant's stated that the only procedural right which Plaintiffs are afforded is the right to raise their arguments in Court after legislation has been passed," Morrison wrote. "This argument is particularly concerning to the Court, implying that the Legislature has the right to pass any law that it deems fit without regard for the Constitutionality or the procedural process."

___

Visit the Belleville News-Democrat (Belleville, Ill.) at www.bnd.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.