Assault Weapons Ban Upheld By Illinois Supreme Court In 4-3 Decision

CHICAGO — The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines in a 4-3 decision, siding with the governor against a state representative.

Friday's ruling in Caulkins v. Pritzker overturns a March decision by a Macon County circuit judge that the Protect Illinois Communities Act — the gun control legislation lawmakers passed in January in response to last year's mass shooting in Highland Park — violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

In an opinion penned by Justice Elizabeth Rochford, the court ruled against the plaintiffs, a Decatur pawn broker, its owner, Rep. Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur) and Law-Abiding Gun Owners of Macon County, an association established after the passage of the assault weapons ban.

The act also faces challenges in federal court, where the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in June.

The law bans dozens of specific semiautomatic rifles and pistols, as well as guns that include various cosmetic features. It limits rifle magazines containing more than 10 rounds, as well as handgun magazines with more than 15 guns.

Those who already owned such weapons were exempted, as were people in a series of specific professions. Exempted classes in the law include current and retired police, law enforcement agencies and prison officials, as well as private security guards, security staff at nuclear facilities and active duty military "while performing their official duties."

The majority found that the plaintiffs, as holders of Firearm Owners Identification, or FOID, cards, "are not similarly situated to the trained professionals" exempted from the law, so the law does not violate the equal protection clause.

"FOID card eligibility does not entail any kind of firearms training or qualification in furtherance of public safety," the court ruled.

"By contrast, each of the seven categories of trained professionals must undergo specialized firearms training pertaining to their employment to maintain their exempt status under the Act," according to the 20-page majority opinion. "This training supports the presumption that they exercise greater responsibility in the safe handling and storage of firearms."

As for the claim that the bill violated the state constitution's requirement that new laws be read in each chamber of the Illinois General Assembly on three different days, the plaintiffs failed to properly appeal, according to the opinion.

When Macon County Associate Judge Rodney Forbes invalidated portions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act but allowed others to stand, Caulkins and his fellow plaintiffs would have had to then file a cross appeal to challenge the issue of whether the "three reading rule" was followed, the court ruled.

Illinois lawmakers routinely violate the state constitution's requirement that new laws be read on three different days in each house by taking bills that have already been read twice and completely amending them — so-called "gut-and-replace legislation."

But because of a legal concept known as the "enrolled-bill doctrine" courts have generally deferred to legislative leaders' declaration that laws have met the constitution's procedural requirements once they pass both houses of the general assembly and are signed into law by the governor.

---

In a dissent, Justice Lisa Holder White, joined by Justice David Overstreet, found that those procedural failures were enough to make the act entirely unconstitutional. The court's two Republican members

"Here, it is abundantly clear that the Protect Illinois Communities Act was not before the House or the Senate on three different days in each house. On January 8 and 9, 2023, the original Insurance Code bill was gutted, and the new amendments, including the restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, were considered and approved in the Senate. The new bill setting forth the Protect Illinois Communities Act then only spent one day in the House before it was passed and signed into law," said Holder White.

"In this case, the Insurance Code bill that received votes on three different days in the House in 2022 was in no way the firearms bill that passed the House on one vote in 2023. That is undeniable," the justice said in her dissent." And concluding that simply reading the title of a completely different bill on three different days suffices to pass constitutional muster is an affront to the people of this state and renders the three-readings requirement essentially meaningless. No such conclusion—whether expressed or implied—should receive the imprimatur of this court."

In a separate dissent, Justice Mary Kay O'Brien found the plaintiffs to be similarly situated to the exempted groups with regard to the purpose of the legislation. O'Brien pointed out that the bill does nothing to prevent the proliferation of out-of-state assault weapons possession or the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines to out-of-state residents, and because the majority of guns used in crimes come from out of state, the legislation "does not further its purported goal," according to her dissent.

"Moreover, not all the professionals are limited in the possession and use of their assault weapons to on-duty conduct, which places them in the same circumstance as members of the general public who may also have weapons training," O'Brien said.

"For example, retired peace officers may continue to purchase and possess assault weapons despite that they no longer have any peacekeeping responsibilities or obligations. They are no different from private citizens who hold Firearm Owner’s Identification cards, like the plaintiffs in this case, but are granted special treatment. Our constitution’s prohibition against special legislation does not allow a law to afford special treatment to one group of citizens without a rational basis to do so."

Writing on behalf of the majority, Rochford emphasized that the ruling did not address whether or not the Protect Illinois Communities Act violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or the right to bear arms in Article I, Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution.

"The complaint did not allege the restrictions violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and none of the six counts were labeled that way," the court ruled.

Plus, according to the opinion, the plaintiff had waived the right to argue that point and had repeatedly said in earlier court filings they were not asserting a violation of the Second Amendment, though they did seek to raise the issue before the Supreme Court on appeal.

"Moreover, even if we accepted plaintiffs’ distorted view of the complaint or excused their unambiguous waiver, genuine questions of material fact would preclude summary judgment on a Second Amendment claim. Ascertaining whether the restrictions unconstitutionally infringe on the public’s right to keep and bear arms requires consideration of whether the regulated items are bearable arms that are commonly used for self-defense and whether the regulations are consistent with this nation’s historical traditions," Rochford said, referencing the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Unsurprisingly, the record contains no evidence—beyond news articles—relevant to these questions because plaintiffs never raised them in the circuit court. Even if the complaint alleged a Second Amendment claim, the record does not support affirming the judgment on that basis," she continued. "As plaintiffs expressly disclaimed a Second Amendment claim below, we offer no opinion on the potential viability of such a claim."