From [HERE] An Illinois federal district judge Friday issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) until there is a final determination as to the law’s constitutionality. The case is in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn issued the preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a). The court ruled that “PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives” of US Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the court ruled that “the overly broad reach of PICA commands” that injunctive relief be granted. As a result of the ruling, Illinois is enjoined from enforcing PICA.
PICA bans the ownership of over 190 models of firearms and criminalizes the possession of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, among other things. Judge McGlynn filed the opinion on April 28, 2023. The opinion is straightforward. In the fifth paragraph, after describing the events leading up to the passage of PICA, Judge McGlynn expounds on the rights Americans enjoy, which are protected by the United States Constitution. From the opinion:
As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms, especially on Independence Day. Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific? More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is “likely no.” The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense. PICA seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them. Whether well-intentioned, brilliant, or arrogant, no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them. Even legislation that may enjoy the support of a majority of its citizens must fail if it violates the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. For the reasons fully set out below, the overly broad reach of PICA commands that the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs be granted.
Judge McGlynn expounds on the immediate harm to the plaintiffs. He explains any denial of Constitutionally protected rights is an immediate harm. Even so, Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, argues (arguendo, “for the sake of the argument”), there are other, obvious, immediate harms. Plaintiffs may not purchase firearms or magazines they desire. Plaintiffs may not sell existing inventory.
But for PICA, Barnett and Norman would purchase additional banned firearms and magazines. Should either one attempt to do so, he could face criminal penalties. There is no monetary award that can compensate for such an injury and make them whole.
There is also no question that both Hoods and Pro Gun have lost income and will continue to do so while PICA remains in effect. The declarations of both James Hood and Paul Smith, owners of Hoods and Pro Gun respectively, expressed that a large percentage of their income was derived from sales of items banned under PICA and that they currently had in their possession tens of thousands of dollars worth of inventory that they have been prohibited from selling since PICA’s effective date.
To obtain a preliminary injunction in federal court, the movant must show that (1) they will suffer irreparable harm in the interim prior to a final resolution; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; and (3) they have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. The court ruled that the plaintiffs satisfied all three requirements and that there is a reasonable likelihood that PICA does in fact violate the Second Amendment. The court noted that “no state may enact a law that denies its citizens rights that the Constitution guarantees them.”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed PICA in response to the Highland Park shooting that occurred during a Fourth of July parade. Seven people were killed in the shooting, and dozens more were injured. Last month, an Illinois state court ruled that PICA is unconstitutional under the Illinois Constitution.
White liberals have two main philosophical arguments.The two arguments are, first: “That was then, this is now.” This is a major component of Progressivism. Things change. Things change fast. Political decisions have to be made fast to react to the change. The argument is in opposition to the philosophy of the Constitution. The founders understood human nature does not change. They understood: it is human nature to attempt to use emotional events to push through unwise change, partisan change, and change to favor special interests quickly.
The Second argument is: Experts know what is better for you than you do. Therefore there should be a government by experts, and there should not be any limits on the power of government. Limits on government only prevent the government from doing good things for you. Therefore, limits on government power are bad. This is the root of “means/ends” arguments.
Both these philosophical arguments have failed real-world tests.
Fast decisions based on emotional arguments almost always are decisions that are bad for the people as a whole. Unlimited governments tend to rule for the benefit of those in charge to the detriment of everyone else. Philosopher kings tend to find philosophical arguments to support debauched lifestyles without responsibility or accountability. [MORE]
