Illinois Gun Ban Trial - Distinction of Military & Civilian Firearms

[ImminentDanger]

Distinction of military, civilian firearms made during Day 2 of IL gun ban trial
By Greg Bishop - September 18, 2024
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...gun-ban-trial/

(The Center Square) -- Whether commercially available semi-automatic rifles now banned in Illinois are common or too similar to military grade firearms was the focus of Day 2 of the bench trial of Illinois' gun and magazine ban.

On preliminary grounds, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state last year, saying commercially available rifles that Illinois banned in January 2023 are too similar to military grade rifles and are able to be regulated.

Now up for final judgment in the Southern District of Illinois federal court, day two of the bench trial was dominated by James Ronkainen, a former longtime engineer and director of firearms development and production for Remington. He said there are material differences between modern sporting rifles and military spec firearms.

Plaintiffs' attorney Thomas Maag explained the impact of his testimony.

"The witness explained correctly that there is a distinction in the AR-15 and the M16 lower receivers and internal parts," Maag said after court adjourned for the day Tuesday. "You cannot simply put fully automatic parts in a run of the mill semi-automatic AR-15."

He said he's never seen a modified AR-15 "in the wild."

Ronkainen testified modifying an AR-15 to be full auto would be illegal by federal law and would be dangerous as military spec burst and full auto firearms are built with different and more durable components than commercially available semi-automatic only firearms. He also said he never had any military contract ask for AR-15 or similar semi-automatic only systems, or any AR-15 with bumpstocks or trigger cranks, devices that speed up the rate of fire for semi-automatic firearms.

Litigants also discussed with Ronkainen various reports from the ATF about the numbers of manufactured rifles from more than 80 different manufacturers. The numbers of semi-automatic firearms was illusive as the ATF reports don't indicate the difference between a bolt action and semi-automatic rifle, but Ronkainen said just by reviewing numbers from manufacturers that only make modern sporting rifles, there are hundreds of thousands of them produced each year.

Maag said that shows how common such rifles are, and they're not only for police.

"As the witness enunciated, if law enforcement are buying all of these firearms, there would be no room in their police stations or their cars to store them all," Maag said.

The state as defendants highlighted in cross examination Ronkainen hasn't worked for Remington since around 2017 and is now a consultant for the firearms industry, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

During cross examination of Ronkainen, the state drilled into the difference between military spec and civilian firearms when considering pounds of pressure to pull the trigger. For military, Ronkainen said the pounds of pressure is higher, or around 6 lbs of pressure, to ensure there is no unintentional trigger pulls. For civilian firearms, the pressure could be as low as 2.5 lbs of pressure.

When the state asked if that means it would take 90 lbs of pressure to fire a 30 round magazine from a civilian firearm, the plaintiffs objected saying that was wrong. The state said it wanted to show the difference in level of fatigue in rapidly firing a civilian firearm versus a military firearm. Ronkainen said that is immaterial.

"I'm not sure the defense understood what a trigger pull was, but overall with what they got I think they did as well as they could," Maag said.

The state has their chance to bring witnesses to testify as early as Wednesday, when the trial resumes in East St. Louis.

???
"the state asked if that means it would take 90 lbs of pressure to fire a 30 round magazine from a civilian firearm"
"I'm not sure the defense understood what a trigger pull was"

...

[bogey1]

I'm not going to read it and risk damaging my brain even more. I thought illinois was a big country state Just like the rest of them,
the city dictates.

[GeneCC]

When the state asked if that means it would take 90 lbs of pressure to fire a 30 round magazine from a civilian firearm, the plaintiffs objected saying that was wrong. The state said it wanted to show the difference in level of fatigue in rapidly firing a civilian firearm versus a military firearm. Ronkainen said that is immaterial.

The most Trigger Pull I ever saw was seventeen pounds, a Polish P-64. I have fired the G3, HK93, HK53 and some of the MP series. I do not recall any unusual trigger pulls.

The AK and M16/M4s all have common trigger pulls.


I do not understand why the Pritzker clique is using these arguments. Do they hope to create precedents for banning pump action shotguns in the future? Are they incompetent? Both?

[GeneCC]

Richard M Daley imposed the first ugly gun ban in Chicago.

Here he talks about sticking an SKS up someone's behind....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHSMMcJEQqU

[JenniferG]

There's no convincing communists that private gun ownership is the backbone of the Constitution. They want full control of the lives of every citizen and have no intention of letting a piece of paper written two hundred and some years ago by slave holders stopping them. They want slavery where they are in control. The only remedy to their plans is defeat them and remove them from power. You choose the method of accomplishing that. The ballot box seems to be failing in that regard.

[GeneCC]

There's no convincing communists that private gun ownership is the backbone of the Constitution. They want full control of the lives of every citizen and have no intention of letting a piece of paper written two hundred and some years ago by slave holders stopping them. They want slavery where they are in control. The only remedy to their plans is defeat them and remove them from power. You choose the method of accomplishing that. The ballot box seems to be failing in that regard.

People need to make up their own minds about solutions. Promoting political violence excuses shutting down this site.

[ImminentDanger]

Gun ban judge: What if Black victims of historic race riots had such weapons
By Greg Bishop - September 20, 2024
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-such-weapons/

(The Center Square) -- The federal judge overseeing the challenge to Illinois' gun and magazine ban questioned what would have happened if Black victims of the East St. Louis race riot of 1917 had such firearms.

Before Judge Stephen McGlynn is the question of whether Illinois' Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans the sale and possession of more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities, is unconstitutional. The law was enacted in January 2023.

Thursday was Day 4 and the final day of the bench trial ban in the Southern District of Illinois federal courtroom. After the final defense witness and closing arguments of the plaintiffs asking the law be struck and the defense asking the law be upheld, McGlynn closed the proceedings discussing the race riot in East St. Louis from 1917.

McGlynn said he wasn't sure why the case was in East St. Louis when it first began last year, but later reflected on that question. On Thursday, he urged people to visit the "sacred sites" in East St. Louis from the race riots that happened there in 1917. More than 30 Black people were killed and dozens of structures destroyed in fires."Black owned houses were set on fire one by one as people escaped to other houses that were burned," he said. "During the course of the riot, some Blacks were armed, shooting back and rioters went to the National Guard and said *that's not fair.' The Guard gave safe passage to some victims across Eads Bridge." He shared a picture showing the current federal courthouse then surrounded by burned buildings and asked how that would have been different if the Black victims had such firearms.

Afterward, plaintiffs' attorney David Sigale said that resonated with why he got involved in Second Amendment issues. "There's countless stories of people victimized, whether it's for race or their gender," Sigale said outside the courthouse Thursday.

McGlynn also noted the history of the 1921 race riot in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He even noted a recent video showing an international gang in Aurora, Colorado, going into an apartment building with high powered rifles. "That video occurred 30 days after the police were called," McGlynn said. "They were on their own. Maybe a child was hiding under their bed. *Mom, are the bad guys gone?'"

On preliminary grounds last year, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the state, saying semi-automatic rifles like the now banned AR-15 are too similar to military firearms and can be regulated. Throughout the week, much of the testimony from both sides worked to compare and contrast civilian and military spec rifles.

The final witness for the state defending the law Thursday was retired Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey. He maintained that semi-automatic fire in the military is preferred, but didn't know the different metals, treatments and parts used between civilian and military rifles. But, Dempsey also said he favors training and accountability over a ban.

Sigale said it's not as if the state legislature will change the law based on one man's opinion. "It was certainly an interesting comment and I'm sure Judge McGlynn will consider it in the mix," Sigale said.

The state said they do not comment on pending litigation.

Litigants have 30 days to submit more information. McGlynn could issue a ruling, including a possible permanent injunction, shortly thereafter.

(Underlining added)

Gun ban trial touches on banned features plaintiffs say facilitate self defense
By Greg Bishop - September 21, 2024
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-self-defense/

(The Center Square) -- While the bench trial for Illinois' gun and magazine ban is over, the reverberations could impact a separate lawsuit against banning firearm silencers.

Litigants in the trial that wrapped up Thursday argued over the difference and similarities of now banned semi-automatic only firearms and military rifles that go full auto or burst. Plaintiffs worked to address the issues raised by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that sided with the state on preliminary grounds last year, saying semi-automatic firearms are too similar to military firearms and can be banned.

Also debated during the bench trial for Barnett v. Raoul was the use of flash suppressors, which the Illinois law bans. Plaintiffs' witnesses discussed how those help the shooter maintain better eyesight when firing a gun in a self defense situation. Defending the ban, attorneys for the state argued that also makes it easier for someone to shoot while in a dark movie theater. Dane Harrel, a lead plaintiff in one of the consolidated cases, said egregious and unlawful use is possible, something that speaks to the shooter's intent. "But for a homeowner, for a business owner or a private citizen that's trying to protect their life or their family's life or those around them, then obviously there's utility," Harrel said.

There was also substantial discussion about other various banned attachments like pistol grips, an attachment plaintiffs argued gives the shooter better and safer control of aim, or collapsible stocks plaintiffs say allow for large and small statured individuals to handle the same rifle in self defense scenarios.

Discussion also focused on threaded barrels banned by Illinois law. Threaded barrels can be used to attach things like suppressors to decrease the sound of a gun firing. Questioning a plaintiffs' witness, Judge Stephen McGlynn talked about how suppressors may be needed for others in the house to safely hear if someone confronts intruders.

Mark Smith, author and host of Four Boxes Diner, said on his YouTube channel that could impact a separate case in the Southern District of Illinois federal court challenging silencer bans. "I'm betting that Judge McGlynn has connected the dots and realizes that indeed suppressors facilitate our self defense, therefore they're arms, therefore the text is satisfied, therefore the in-common-use test applies, therefore the government bears the burden to show this stuff is not in common use," Smith said.

Gun ban litigants have until Oct. 21 to file remaining briefs before a ruling from McGlynn.

The silencer ban case was transferred from McGlynn to Judge David Dugan, consolidated with similar cases in Morse et al v. Raoul et al and is still pending.

...

[tlnzz1]

The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction between military or civilian firearms. The Supreme Courts definition of, "In common use", applies to both anyway.