Ignorant Analysis Of Illinois AWB Ruling Proves Who The Real “Jackass” Is

Anytime a court docket guidelines in favor of Second Modification rights, you might be certain there shall be a naysayer on the market someplace satisfied the judges have been fallacious, and the weapons in query ought to, certainly, be banned.

Such was the case final week in Barnett v. Raoul, during which the U.S. District Courtroom for the Southern District of Illinois discovered that two provisions of the Shield Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which ban many semi-automatic firearms and so-called “high-capacity” magazines, are unconstitutional beneath each the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

In an Op-Ed posted at abovethelaw.com, writer Joe Patrice took challenge with the ruling, making an attempt to make Choose Stephen McGlynn, who wrote the opinion, out to be some type of whacko and referring to him as a “jackass.” Simply take into account the headline: “Trump Choose Guidelines Weapons Are Kind Of Like Airbags. Good, Murderous Airbags.”

Patrice bases his whole criticism of the choice on one quick phase of the opinion the place Choose McGlynn wrote: “Why are there small lifeboats on gigantic metal ocean liners? Why will we spend hundreds equipping our autos with airbags? Why will we put on seatbelts and place our infants in security seats? Why will we construct storm shelters beneath our properties? Why will we set up ground-fault interrupter retailers by sinks and bathtubs? Why will we get painful inoculations? Why will we voluntarily bear sickening chemotherapy? And why will we shield ourselves with firearms?”

To a considering individual, that assertion makes plenty of sense. In any case, the instruments talked about, together with firearms, are all used to move off some type of hazard or catastrophe that we’d generally face. However apparently, to Patrice, weapons don’t have any such use as potential defensive instruments for law-abiding Americans.

Equally disturbing, Patrice led the piece off with what he most likely thought was intelligent however was really an asinine evaluation of two of essentially the most essential Second Modification Supreme Courtroom rulings in many years.

“It’s not stunning {that a} Trump choose would strike down a gun regulation,” Patrice wrote. “Republican judges try this on a regular basis. Between Heller and Bruen, there’s now a set of boilerplate, ahistorical gibberish that judges can cite to allow them to hem and haw in regards to the ‘grave seriousness’ of the risk however then strike down the regulation as overbroad anyway, regardless of how narrowly tailor-made it may be. You would possibly assume it ought to be unlawful to have that, however the authentic public that means says the Founding Fathers EXPECTED your neighbor to personal a rocket-propelled grenade launcher!”

When writers use such hyperbole because the “grenade launcher” argument, it’s a sign they don’t have a extra affordable leg to face on. That’s the case with this Op-Ed—it fully ignores many crucial factors made within the 168-page ruling.

Since abovethelaw.com selected to not share that info, we’ll gladly make our argument in opposition to their Op-Ed by doing simply that. In reality, Choose McGlynn pointed towards individuals like writer Patrice within the ruling.

“Sadly, there are those that search to usher in a type of post-Structure period the place the residents’ particular person rights are solely as essential as they’re handy to a ruling class,” the opinion said. “Looking for historical legal guidelines which will accomplice effectively with a present-day infringement on a proper proclaimed within the Invoice of Rights with out studying it together with the aforementioned historical past is nonsense

“The oft-quoted phrase that ‘no proper is absolute’ doesn’t imply that basic rights precariously subsist topic to the whims, caprice, or urge for food of presidency officers or judges.”

Choose McGlynn additionally said within the opinion: “What is especially disturbing is that the prohibition of weapons which might be generally owned and utilized by residents at the moment are banned, depriving residents of a principal means to defend themselves and their property in conditions the place a handgun or shotgun alone wouldn’t be the citizen’s most well-liked arm.

“Subsequently, the Courtroom should take motion as justice calls for. PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Modification and have to be enjoined.”

Ultimately, Choose McGlynn concluded that the 2 provisions of the regulation in query violate protections discovered inside the Invoice of Rights and can’t stand.

“… contemplating all the proof introduced, the Courtroom holds that the provisions of PICA criminalizing the understanding possession of particular semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional beneath the Second Modification to america Structure as utilized to the states by the Fourteenth Modification,” the opinion said. “Because the prohibition of firearms is unconstitutional, so is the registration scheme for assault weapons, attachments, and large-capacity magazines.”

Ultimately, the ruling was well-reasoned, primarily based on the precedent set by each Heller and Bruen. Simply because some don’t like the end result of the case doesn’t imply the court docket didn’t do its homework and make a professional ruling primarily based on the information introduced.