(The Center Square) – The federal judge overseeing the challenge to Illinois’ gun and magazine ban questioned what would have happened if Black victims of the East St. Louis race riot of 1917 had such firearms.
Before Judge Stephen McGlynn is the question of whether Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans the sale and possession of more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities, is unconstitutional. The law was enacted in January 2023.
Thursday was Day 4 and the final day of the bench trial ban in the Southern District of Illinois federal courtroom. After the final defense witness and closing arguments of the plaintiffs asking the law be struck and the defense asking the law be upheld, McGlynn closed the proceedings discussing the race riot in East St. Louis from 1917.
McGlynn said he wasn’t sure why the case was in East St. Louis when it first began last year, but later reflected on that question. On Thursday, he urged people to visit the “sacred sites” in East St. Louis from the race riots that happened there in 1917. More than 30 Black people were killed and dozens of structures destroyed in fires.
“Black owned houses were set on fire one by one as people escaped to other houses that were burned,” he said. “During the course of the riot, some Blacks were armed, shooting back and rioters went to the National Guard and said ‘that’s not fair.’ The Guard gave safe passage to some victims across Eads Bridge.”
He shared a picture showing the current federal courthouse then surrounded by burned buildings and asked how that would have been different if the Black victims had such firearms.
Afterward, plaintiffs’ attorney David Sigale said that resonated with why he got involved in Second Amendment issues.
“There’s countless stories of people victimized, whether it’s for race or their gender,” Sigale said outside the courthouse Thursday.
McGlynn also noted the history of the 1921 race riot in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He even noted a recent video showing an international gang in Aurora, Colorado, going into an apartment building with high powered rifles.
“That video occurred 30 days after the police were called,” McGlynn said. “They were on their own. Maybe a child was hiding under their bed. ‘Mom, are the bad guys gone?’”
On preliminary grounds last year, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the state, saying semi-automatic rifles like the now banned AR-15 are too similar to military firearms and can be regulated. Throughout the week, much of the testimony from both sides worked to compare and contrast civilian and military spec rifles.
The final witness for the state defending the law Thursday was retired Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey. He maintained that semi-automatic fire in the military is preferred, but didn’t know the different metals, treatments and parts used between civilian and military rifles. But, Dempsey also said he favors training and accountability over a ban.
Sigale said it’s not as if the state legislature will change the law based on one man’s opinion.
“It was certainly an interesting comment and I’m sure Judge McGlynn will consider it in the mix,” Sigale said.
The state said they do not comment on pending litigation.
Litigants have 30 days to submit more information. McGlynn could issue a ruling, including a possible permanent injunction, shortly thereafter.
