Video Highlights
- Two federal lawsuits, Morse V Raul and Anderson V Raul, aim to remove the state ban on suppressor purchase and possession in Illinois.
- These cases could potentially set a precedent, declaring state bans on suppressors as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The lawsuits argue that suppressors are common arms owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and are protected under the Heller Decision.
- Judge McGlynn's recent ruling granting a preliminary injunction against the state's ban on so-called assault weapons has paved the way for progress in these suppressor lawsuits.
- Both cases have been consolidated under Judge David Duggan, who is believed to be even more favorable towards Second Amendment rights.
Video Summary
In a significant development, two lawsuits are making headway in challenging the state ban on suppressor purchase and possession in Illinois. The cases, Morse V Raul and Anderson V Raul, have been filed in separate federal District Courts within the state. Their aim is to remove the restrictions on suppressors, also known as silencers, and potentially set a groundbreaking precedent by declaring such bans as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Currently, 42 states allow for the legal ownership of suppressors, making them available for purchase and possession. However, nine jurisdictions in the United States still impose bans on these devices. The lawsuits in question could be the first to challenge the outright ban on National Firearms Act (NFA) items like suppressors, based on the argument that it violates the Second Amendment. These arguments find support in the Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and Bruin.
Previously, the Anderson case was put on hold pending Judge McGlynn's ruling on Illinois' ban on so-called assault weapons, known as the "pick act." However, Judge McGlynn recently issued a decision granting a preliminary injunction against the ban, asserting that it infringes on the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. This ruling has cleared the way for progress in the suppressor lawsuits, prompting the consolidation of both cases under the jurisdiction of Judge David Duggan.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that suppressors are common arms owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense. They emphasize that these devices are neither dangerous nor unusual and fall squarely within the scope of the Heller Decision. The legal argument dismissing the protection of suppressors due to their non-existence during the founding era is deemed irrelevant, as the Supreme Court has already established that the Second Amendment extends to modern forms of bearable arms.
By challenging the state of Illinois' complete ban on suppressors, the plaintiffs seek a court ruling that would declare such bans as violations of the Second Amendment. Judge McGlynn's recent favorable ruling in the related assault weapons case has further fueled the hope for a positive outcome. The consolidation of the two cases under Judge Duggan is seen as an advantage, as it brings together the resources and expertise of multiple pro-Second Amendment groups and attorneys in a single courtroom.
Although the belief is that Judge Duggan may be even more inclined towards Second Amendment rights, only time will tell how these consolidated cases will proceed and what the final outcome will be. The impact of these lawsuits extends beyond Illinois, potentially affecting other states with bans on NFA items like suppressors, including California.
As developments continue to unfold, it is crucial to support the dissemination of information regarding these cases. Liking, commenting, subscribing, and sharing videos like this one can help promote awareness and ensure that valuable content reaches a wider audience. The collective efforts of viewers play a vital role in influencing the algorithm and demonstrating the demand for this type of Second Amendment news.
In conclusion, the lawsuits challenging suppressor restrictions in Illinois represent a significant step in asserting the constitutional rights of gun owners. If successful, these cases could pave the way for the reconsideration of suppressor bans in other states, marking a groundbreaking Supreme Court decision that reinforces the protection of Second Amendment rights in the modern era.
