Black Guns & 30-Round Banana Mags Are the New “Taste of Chicago”

It’s time to peel off Governor Pritzker’s breakfast!

Let’s start with the name of the law that was just struck down in Illinois: PICA.

It’s supposed to stand for “Protect Illinois Communities Act,” but whoever named it apparently didn’t know what “pica” is. Pica is a medical condition, linked to vitamin deficiency, in which people crave and consume items that aren’t food. Popular pica picks include clay, paper, ice … and paint chips. Yes, they named an anti-gun statute after a disorder that makes people eat paint chips.

It’s sort of an odd choice for a state that prides itself on its gustatory achievements. The “Taste of Chicago” fair is the world’s largest food festival, attended by millions. And if we can continue the metaphor for just a little longer, we should note that of all the delicious treats on offer, one flavor that’s been missing from the Taste of Chicago is firearms freedom.

That’s because, for decades, the residents of Illinois have lived on the whims of Chicago.

Outside of the Windbag City, Illinois is populated by avid hunters and shooters who strongly object to gun control. Their trouble, like those people who live in Upstate New York, is that their votes are outweighed by the huge cities in their state. Pro-gun Illinoisans are, essentially, on their own. Today, we’re learning that some of this injustice is going into the past tense. Several provisions of PICA have been knocked, as they say, off the table. No more paint chips, no more dirt, no more cigarette butts. Today, Illinoisans are eating good.

For the details, we’re turning it over to the NRA’s Institute of Legislative Action, which helped make this all happen!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois struck down provisions of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) that prohibit “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” in an NRA-supported case, Barnett v. Raoul.

In a thorough, 168-page opinion, the district court applied the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test for Second Amendment challenges, as interpreted by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Starting with the text, because the Supreme Court has stated that “common” arms are protected by the Second Amendment, but “dangerous and unusual” arms are not, the district court defined those terms. A “dangerous” arm, the court determined, is one “that a typical operator cannot reasonably control to neutralize discrete, identified aggressors.” An “unusual” arm is “an arm deploying an atypical method to neutralize an opponent in confrontation or that deploys a neutralizing agent that is caustic, incendiary, noxious, poisonous, or radioactive.” And a “common” arm encompasses “any bearable rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is capable of semiautomatic fire and is or has been available for purchase, possession, and usage by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, provided that it is not otherwise ‘dangerous and unusual.’” Applying these definitions, the court concluded that the banned “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” are common arms covered by the Second Amendment.

Proceeding to its historical analysis, the court emphasized the importance of the right to keep and bear arms at the time of our nation’s Founding, and then considered traditional regulations on that right. Ultimately, the court found no historical regulations that could justify PICA’s restrictions.

In conclusion, the court denounced “those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens’ individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class,” and ruled that “the provisions of PICA criminalizing the knowing possession of specific semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, magazines, and attachments are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The court did issue a 30-day stay, however, to allow the government an opportunity to appeal.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit https://www.nraila.org/legal-legislation/current-litigation/ to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.