A win for the NRA

Illinois Supreme Court ruled on Cook County's violation of 2nd Amendment

In a unanimous opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court breathed new life into a challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault weapons today.

The justices said it wants Circuit Court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns. They ruled the lower court's dismissal of the Second Amendment argument was improper.

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 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.

The Circuit 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 Second Amendment establishes a fundamental right to possess a handgun for self-defense.

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 high court said it was too early in the case to say conclusively whether assault weapons, as described in the ordinance, should fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. At this point in the case, neither side has been able to argue sufficiently to come down either way in the case, justices said.