State Supreme Court allows suit against assault weapons ban
SPRINGFIELD — A challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban led by three suburban residents — one of them from Rolling Meadows — took a major step forward Thursday.
The Illinois Supreme Court Thursday decided to let the challenge proceed, even though two lower courts had tossed it out.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, said it wants the trial court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns.
Cook County banned the sale or possession of assault weapons in 1993. The ordinance included details of what constituted an assault weapon and examples of banned guns, but it was aimed at “high-capacity, rapid-fire” rifles and pistols. The law was expanded in 2006 to ban large ammunition magazines.
The ban was challenged by three Cook County residents — Troy Edhlund of Rolling Meadows, Matthew Wilson of Brookfield and Joseph Messineo of Melrose Park — who said they had perfectly valid reasons to own the prohibited weapons, from hunting to target shooting to personal protection. They argued that the law was too vague and too broad, with little connection to the goal of increasing public safety.
A trial court ruled the ordinance was constitutional, as did the state appeals court.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned handguns. It held that the 2nd Amendment establishes a fundamental right to possess a handgun for self-defense.
“Of course we are pretty pleased,” said Victor Quilici, River Grove lawyer for the three appellants. “Anytime there is a split with the court ... that often raises eyebrows and flags go up as to where we’re going from here.”
The Illinois appeals court reviewed the case in light of the new federal ruling but still found the Cook County ban was constitutional.
But the Illinois Supreme Court says the issue needs a closer look.
The key question is whether high-capacity, fast-firing weapons should be considered ordinary guns that get full Second Amendment protection or treated like machine guns and other special weapons that can be restricted.
In an opinion written by Justice Mary Jane Theis, the Supreme Court said it needs more facts before it can tell whether guns labeled assault weapons “are well-suited for defense or sport or would be outweighed completely by the collateral damage resulting from their use, making them ‘dangerous and unusual.’”
In the coming weeks, Quilici said his team plans to add to pleadings and file a number of studies they were previously “deprived” of doing.
Ÿ Daily Herald staff writer Kerry Lester contributed to this report.