Illinois Supreme Court upholds state’s sweeping gun ban

The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld the state’s sweeping gun ban, fending off the first major challenge to the landmark law which now awaits its fate before a federal appellate court.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling is a victory for gun control advocates who pushed for the law following a mass shooting during last year’s Fourth of July parade in Highland Park that claimed the lives of seven people and left dozens injured.

Four of the court’s Democratic justices — Elizabeth Rochford, Joy Cunningham, P. Scott Neville and Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis — ruled in favor of the state, while the two Republicans, justices Lisa Holder White and David Overstreet, dissented jointly. Democratic Justice Mary Kay O’Brien wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

The court found that the law does not violate the state constitution’s equal protection clause by creating exemptions for certain trained professionals and for people who owned the now-banned firearms at the time the law took effect in January.

Whether the law violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was not addressed in the ruling because the parties bringing the challenge did not raise that issue directly in their lawsuit before a lower court, the justices wrote.

As a result, “we offer no opinion on the potential viability of such a claim,” Rochford wrote for the majority.

The decision came on the same day that Vice President Kamala Harris visited Chicago to make a speech at the annual conference for Everytown for Gun Safety, a national gun control group that supported Illinois’ ban on certain high-powered guns and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

It marked the second recent high-profile victory at the state’s highest court for Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who championed the ban and signed the measure into law just hours after it was passed by the legislature.

“This decision is a win for advocates, survivors, and families alike because it preserves this nation-leading legislation to combat gun violence and save countless lives,” said Pritzker, who last month saw the court uphold a law he backed that abolished cash bail in the state.

Friday’s ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs led by Republican state Rep. Dan Caulkins that argued the weapons ban violates the Illinois Constitution’s requirement that state laws should be applied equally to all citizens.

In late April, Macon County Judge Rodney Forbes found that the ban caused an “irreparable harm” by denying plaintiffs the ability to “purchase their firearm of choice” and “exercise their right to self-defense in the manner they choose.” The decision was appealed by Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office.

During arguments before the state Supreme Court in May, attorneys with Raoul’s office said the plaintiffs failed to prove the weapons ban violated the state constitution. To prove the equal protection clause was violated by the ban, the state argued, the lawsuit would have to show that Caulkins and the other plaintiffs are “similarly situated,” or alike, as are the specifically defined groups exempted from the weapons ban.

“Members of the general public are not similarly situated to those (exempted under the law) because members of (the exempted groups) are sort of presumed to exercise greater responsibility in the safe handling and storage of firearms,” Assistant Attorney General Leigh Jahnig said.

The exemptions include retired and current police and military personnel and prison wardens, as well as those who already owned the prohibited guns prior to the ban. Those gun owners can keep those firearms but are now required to register them with the Illinois State Police.

Jerry Stocks, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued the law is therefore not applied equally, and also contended it’s improper to allow the “grandfathered” gun owners to own the prohibited firearms but to not allow anyone to purchase those guns.

In its ruling, the court sided with the state, finding that lawmakers have the power to create “distinctions in legislation among different categories of people as long as the legislature does not draw those distinctions based on criteria wholly unrelated to the legislation’s purpose.”

Simply possessing a state firearm owner’s identification card “does not entail any kind of firearms training or qualification in furtherance of public safety,” which is required for the exempted groups, the court ruled.

As for the different treatment of gun owners who already possessed the newly banned weapons, “the grandfathered individuals have a reliance interest based on their acquisition before the restrictions took effect,” Rochford wrote. “By pointing out that those who already possess restricted items may retain them under the grandfather provision, the complaint makes clear that plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the exempt class.”

Stocks also argued the ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. All citizens “have the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms” in their homes for self-defense, Stocks said. “The Second Amendment elevates above all interests.”

But the court set aside any consideration of the right to bear arms because the plaintiffs eschewed that argument in the lower court.

“Ascertaining whether the restrictions unconstitutionally infringe on the public’s right to keep and bear arms requires consideration of whether the regulated items are bearable arms that are commonly used for self-defense and whether the regulations are consistent with this nation’s historical traditions,” Rochford wrote.

“Unsurprisingly, the record contains no evidence — beyond news articles — relevant to these questions because plaintiffs never raised them in the circuit court,” Rochford wrote. “Even if the complaint alleged a second amendment claim, the record does not support affirming the judgment on that basis.”

In her dissent, White agreed with the plaintiffs that the legislative process leading to the gun ban did not adhere to a constitutional mandate, requiring bills to be read before the House and Senate on three different days in each chamber in order to allow meaningful debate on a particular issue. The high court, though, has a long-established precedent of deferring to procedural decisions made by legislative leaders on bills.

In her dissent, O’Brien wrote that exempting certain groups from the ban does nothing “to prevent the proliferation of out-of-state assault weapon possession or prevent those weapons from being used for mass shootings in this state or elsewhere.”

O’Brien also wrote that retired police officers are exempt from the ban “though they no longer have any peacekeeping responsibilities or obligations,” which makes them no different from private citizens who hold state firearm permits.

State Rep. Bob Morgan, a Deerfield Democrat who sponsored the gun ban legislation, applauded the court’s ruling.

“The federal courts will continue to assess this law, but today’s ruling prioritizes public safety over the gun lobby trying to impose their dangerous, extreme views through the judiciary,” Morgan said in a statement.

Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said in a statement that the high court’s ruling tells the public that “saving lives takes precedence over thoughts and prayers” and stresses the need for sensible gun control measures.

“The Court’s decision underscores the necessity of enacting policies that help mitigate the devastating impact of gun violence,” Rotering said.

Caulkins blamed the outcome of his case on partisanship, with Democrats holding five of the high court’s seven seats. He said his lawyers had sought the recusal of two Democratic justices, Rochford and O’Brien, after Pritzker donated $1 million to each of their campaigns last year. The justices declined, and while Rochford voted in the majority, O’Brien dissented on the opinion.

Nonetheless, Caulkins, speaking at the Illinois State Fair in Springfield, said the state Supreme Court “has shown itself to be very, very political.”

“We felt very strongly that this law needed to be challenged in the Illinois court system” he said. “Unfortunately, we didn’t get the result we wanted but I think it also exposes this court for what it is.”

Caulkins said Pritzker’s staunch gun control position is an example of the governor “treating Illinois like a petri dish in his quest to run for president.”

“Every issue that the radical left will find attractive in a presidential primary, Governor Pritzker has enforced right here in Illinois,” he said.

The ban has faced a slew of lawsuits on the federal level alleging that the law violates the Second Amendment. Those lawsuits, filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, were consolidated into one case that was argued in June before a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel has yet to issue its ruling.

Several lawsuits were filed by downstate attorney Thomas DeVore, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Illinois attorney general last year. DeVore on Friday said the temporary restraining order on the gun ban that was put in place in Effingham County still applies to thousands of plaintiffs until the courts decide otherwise.

Raoul’s office declined to comment on how Friday’s ruling affects Devore’s cases in Effingham County.

“We’re going to keep going to the best of our ability,” DeVore said.

The law bans the delivery, sale, import and purchase of a long list of so-called assault weapons. Also banned are the delivery, sale or purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for handguns.

Petrella reported from Chicago.

jgorner@chicagotribune.com

dpetrella@chicagotribune.com