The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with other plaintiffs, has filed a petition for a full en banc panel review in the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This action is part of the ongoing legal challenge against Illinois' ban on so-called "assault weapons" and their magazines. The consolidated federal court cases, known as Harrel v. Raoul, Barnett v. Raoul, and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois v. Raoul, represent a significant legal confrontation with the state's firearms legislation.
Find Guns & Ammo on Gun Coyote | The Gun Deals Search Engine
Attorneys Mark L. Shaw, Jennifer Craigmile Neubauer, Michael A. Danfore, C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir, David Sigale, David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom are representing the plaintiffs, including SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, C4 Gun Store, and individual Dane Harrel.
The petition filed by SAF underscores the appellate panel's decision as being in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen. It emphasizes that modern semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment, countering the panel’s majority view that these firearms are not protected as they are not considered 'dangerous or unusual.'
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF's founder and Executive Vice President, criticized the appellate panel for disregarding the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Bruen case. He asserted that the panel's ruling, which seemingly deems all guns on the banned list as suitable only for military use and hence unprotected by the Second Amendment, is a significant deviation that requires correction.
Adam Kraut, SAF's Executive Director, echoed Gottlieb’s concerns, emphasizing the need for the full en banc panel to address this judicial error. He highlighted the necessity of adhering to the Supreme Court's rulings without letting subjective judgments influence the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
This legal effort reflects a broader challenge to state-level gun control measures in the wake of the Bruen decision and could potentially reshape Second Amendment jurisprudence in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment