By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com
EAST ST. LOUIS – The owner of a gun store testified Monday that Illinois’ ban on the sale of assault-style weapons and large capacity magazines has had a significant impact on his business and prevented his customers from buying items they would normally use for self-defense, hunting, target shooting or other legal activities.
Scott Pulaski, who owns Piasa Armory in East Alton, Illinois, was the opening witness in a federal trial challenging the constitutionality of the state’s assault weapons ban, formally known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act, or PICA.
The trial before Judge Stephen McGlynn involves numerous plaintiffs – gun store owners, gun rights advocacy groups, and private individuals – who argue the law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Illinois lawmakers passed the ban in 2023 following a mass shooting the prior year at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park that left seven people dead and dozens more injured. The alleged shooter in that case used a Smith & Wesson M&P-15 semiautomatic rifle, which is among the dozens of types of weapons now restricted under the new law.
In opening statements, plaintiffs’ attorney Andrew Lothson said the law should be ruled unconstitutional because it restricts access to weapons commonly used for lawful purposes.
He also cited a legal standard set out in the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent ruling on Second Amendment rights, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, arguing there is no historical tradition in the United States of regulating such weapons that dates back to the founding of the Constitution.
But Assistant Illinois Attorney General Christopher Wells said in his opening statement that weapons primarily designed for use by the military are not protected under the Second Amendment.
He said the state plans to call two expert witnesses with military backgrounds who will testify that the AR-style semiautomatic rifles restricted under PICA are “not materially different” from the M-16 rifles commonly used in the military, except for the fact that the M-16 has a setting allowing it to be fired as a fully automatic weapon.
Plaintiffs on Monday tried to preempt that argument by calling their own expert witness, retired Marine Corps Gunner Jeff Eby, who said in his opinion, the guns banned under the Illinois law are not fit for military use because they only operate as semiautomatic weapons, meaning they only fire one round each time the trigger is pulled.
The military, he said, uses weapons that can switch from semiautomatic to fully automatic operation, or even operate in a “burst fire” mode in which three bullets fire with a single pull of the trigger.
Eby testified that fully automatic weapons are more suitable for combat use because firing large volumes of shots at an enemy increases the chances of hitting something while also acting as a psychological deterrent for the enemy.
During cross examination, however, Wells produced reports suggesting Eby’s theories were outdated, and that modern military planners prefer using the more accurate semiautomatic weapons in combat, weapons more similar to those banned under PICA.
In April 2023, Judge McGlynn granted a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the case proceeded, saying he believed the plaintiffs were likely win on the merits of their case – meaning the law would likely be found unconstitutional.
But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly reversed that ruling and lifted the injunction. And in a 2-1 ruling in November, the court sided with two other district court judges in Chicago, holding the law likely does not infringe on the Second Amendment and allowing enforcement of the law to continue.
That decision was quickly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the decision at this juncture and remanded all the cases back to the district courts for trials.
The case in East St. Louis is the first of those to go to trial. McGlynn has scheduled five days for the trial.
