By Greg Bishop | The Center Square
The Center Square

(The Center Square) − Ahead of oral arguments over Illinois’ gun ban in the federal appeals court, attorneys for the state filed their final reply brief.

Part of the state’s argument filed Thursday is that the firearms banned in 2023 are both dangerous and unusual. They cite that only 0.64% of the state’s population registered their firearms.

“Relatedly, plaintiffs cite the district court’s estimate that between 14.1 and 18.2 million adults own AR-platform rifles,” the filing says. “Even if these national numbers were more probative than the Illinois-specific data, that would amount to only 5% of Americans. In short, the evidence showed that these firearms are not widely possessed.”

Todd Vandermyde advocates for the Second Amendment.

“They are inferring that the only people that own these are people who registered them, not taking into account that people own them and may have moved them out of the state or just flipped the middle finger to [Illinois Gov. J.B.] Pritzker,” Vandermyde told The Center Square.

The state argued the banned firearms aren’t necessary for self defense.

“About [large capacity magazines], plaintiffs describe testimony that having more ammunition available makes a person safer, as well as anecdotal incidents in which an individual fired more than 10 bullets in self-defense,” the filing says. “These isolated incidents cannot undermine the data establishing that civilians use between two and three bullets on average when firing in self-defense. And even in the hypothetical situation in which more than 10 shots from a long gun or more than 15 shots from a handgun might be desired, the Act presents no problem: it regulates only how many shots can be fired without reloading, not the total amount of ammunition a person can have.”

Vandermyde said the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms isn’t just for self-defense.

“If you wanna collect AR-15s from every manufacturer because … it’s like collecting doorknobs, so be it, that is a perfectly lawful use,” Vandermyde said. “If you wanna use it for competition shooting, fine.”

With the record from the district court’s four-day bench trial and 7,000 pages of evidence and testimony, Vandermyde said it’s a perfect case for the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Because, final judgement, record, you know they’ve gone back and forth, the whole nine yards,” he said.

Ultimately, Vandermyde said the case is going to the U.S. Supreme Court. It just depends on when that happens after the appeals court completes the case.

“Somebody just needs to get up there in front of the court next month and say ‘we understand that this isn’t the last stop for this train, so whatever you do, rule, rule fast and let’s get on with it,’” Vandermyde said.

Oral arguments for the case in the appeals court are set for Sept. 22.