Illinois's attempt to ban popular rifles just got a federal smackdown. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division threw its weight behind the National Rifle Association's lawsuit against the state's so-called "assault weapons" ban on Friday, arguing it stomps on Second Amendment rights.
Newsmax reported that the DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA's challenge to Illinois' ban on commonly used firearms and magazines. This action follows a landmark Supreme Court ruling from three years ago, which aimed to stop states from treating the Second Amendment like a constitutional afterthought.
Illinois, apparently deaf to the Supreme Court's warning, passed its restrictive gun law mere months after the Bruen decision.
The state outlawed rifles and magazines that millions of law-abiding Americans use for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Such defiance of judicial clarity deserves a sharp rebuke.
The DOJ's brief pulls no punches, asserting Illinois' ban violates the Second Amendment by targeting firearms in "common use" for lawful purposes. This isn't about exotic weaponry; these are rifles and magazines owned by everyday citizens. Illinois' overreach seems more about ideology than public safety.
"The Second Amendment is not a second-class right," said Harmeet Dhillon, DOJ Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General.
Her words echo the frustration of millions who see their constitutional protections eroded by progressive overreach. Illinois' law, in this view, is a deliberate thumb in the eye of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Bruen decision three years ago was a game-changer, demanding that states respect the Second Amendment with the same rigor as other constitutional rights. Illinois' response? A ban that ignores the court's directive, targeting tools of self-defense cherished by law-abiding citizens.
The DOJ's argument hinges on two critical points: whether Illinois' ban unlawfully restricts firearms commonly used by law-abiding citizens and whether it improperly limits magazines and attachments also in widespread use.
These aren't fringe issues; they cut to the heart of constitutional protections. Illinois' law seems crafted to provoke rather than protect.
"Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as 'a second-class right,'" the DOJ's brief states. Yet, Illinois doubled down, passing a law that bans what millions legally own. This isn't governance; it's ideological warfare.
The NRA's lawsuit, now bolstered by the DOJ, challenges a state law that seems to mock the notion of constitutional fidelity. By targeting rifles and magazines in common use, Illinois isn't just regulating; it's restricting rights with a heavy hand. The DOJ's involvement underscores the stakes.
"Regrettably, not every State got the message," the DOJ brief notes, calling out Illinois for its post-Bruen ban.
This isn't just a legal misstep; it's a calculated move to undermine a fundamental right. The Second Amendment isn't a suggestion, despite what some statehouses might think.
The DOJ's support for the NRA isn't just about guns; it's about ensuring the Constitution isn't cherry-picked by progressive agendas. Illinois' ban, by targeting commonly owned firearms, risks setting a precedent for eroding other rights. If this stands, what's next on the chopping block?
The Supreme Court's Bruen ruling was clear: states can't treat the Second Amendment as a lesser right. Illinois's swift move to ban popular rifles and magazines suggests either ignorance or arrogance. Neither bodes well for a state claiming to uphold the rule of law.
The DOJ's brief argues that Illinois' law fails the constitutional test by banning firearms and accessories that law-abiding citizens routinely use.
This isn't about militias or mayhem; it's about everyday Americans exercising their rights. Illinois' ban feels like a solution in search of a problem.
The NRA, with the DOJ's backing, is pushing back against a law that seems more about signaling than safety. The Second Amendment protects the tools of self-defense, not just the idea of it. Illinois' attempt to redefine "common use" is a legal overreach that demands correction.
