In a move that is alarming to gun-ban advocates but being cheered by Second Amendment supporters, the Trump Administration Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested to present oral arguments in support of Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
In the cases Barnett v. Raoul, the DOJ in June filed an amicus brief with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not in support of the state, but of the plaintiff’s suing to have the ban overturned.
“Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other’ constitutional rights,” the DOJ brief stated. “Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. In doing so, Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
With oral arguments set for September 23, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has now filed a request to take part in the oral arguments—again siding with the plaintiffs challenging the ban.
“This appeal concerns whether Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act, which prohibits so-called ‘assault weapons,’ can withstand scrutiny under the Second Amendment, which protects Americans’ right to ‘keep and bear Arms,’” the filing states. “Because of the federal government’s interest in ‘protect[ing] the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,’ the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees. The United States believes that its participation in oral argument will be helpful to the Court
“If the Court grants this motion, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, Harmeet K. Dhillon, will present oral argument on behalf of the United States.”
In the filing, the DOJ also specified the amount of time its representative intended to use in making his case against the law.
“This Court’s calendar currently indicates that the Court has allotted 45minutes of argument time to defendants-appellants and 45 minutes to plaintiffs-appellees,” the brief states. “Counsel for plaintiffs-appellees consent to this motion and have agreed to cede five minutes of their oral argument time to the United States if this motion is granted. As a result, the United States’ participation in oral argument will not affect the overall time allotted for this case.”
Ultimately, the DOJ is asking the circuit court to affirm the district court’s injunction against enforcing the law. Giving the DOJ’s anticipated participation in the proceedings, the oral arguments could be quite eye-opening.
