{"id":315,"date":"2012-04-05T17:48:23","date_gmt":"2012-04-05T17:48:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=315"},"modified":"2012-04-05T17:48:23","modified_gmt":"2012-04-05T17:48:23","slug":"illinois-supreme-court-remands-second-amendment-challenge-in-wilson-v-county-of-cook","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=315","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Supreme Court Remands Second Amendment Challenge in Wilson v. County of Cook"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

Features that make firearms 'evil' according to Cook County<\/p><\/div>\n

The Illinois Supreme Court has just now released its opinion in Wilson v. County of Cook <\/a><\/em>and it contains ‘slightly’ good news for Second Amendment advocates.<\/p>\n

If you recall, Wilson\u00a0<\/em>was filed by Illinois residents and gun owners\u00a0Matthew D.\u00a0Wilson, Troy Edhlund, and Joseph Messineo as a challenge to the 2006 ordinance Cook County passed in response to the September, 2004 expiration of President Clinton’s so-called ‘Assault Weapons Ban.’<\/p>\n

The Cook County ordinance (06-O-50)<\/a>, named the ‘Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban’ is codified at \u00a7\u00a7 54-211 – 213 of the Cook County Code of Ordinances<\/a>\u00a0and mimics the now defunct federal ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ in prohibiting certain firearms based upon broad, ill-defined categories of characteristics.<\/p>\n

The Wilson<\/em> plaintiffs challenged the bill seeking injunctive and declaratory relief based upon vagueness, equal protection and Second Amendment claims.<\/p>\n

This challenge having been filed prior to the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago<\/a><\/em>, the circuit court\u00a0dismissed, noting that, at that time, the Second Amendment was not incorporated against the state and therefore did not restrain the police power thereof. \u00a0The appellate court upheld the circuit court decision.<\/p>\n

Following the decision in McDonald<\/em>, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order sending\u00a0Wilson<\/em>\u00a0back to the appellate court, directing it to vacate its previous judgment and review the case on its merits. \u00a0The appellate court once again upheld the dismissal of the case holding that the Second Amendment did not extend to ‘assault weapons.’<\/p>\n

Many Second Amendment advocates noted at the time that this ran counter to the District of Columbia v.\u00a0Heller<\/a><\/em> court’s reaffirmation of the premise from United States v. Miller<\/a><\/em> that the Second Amendment protects “the sorts of weapons … ‘in common use at the time'” and many of the firearms thus banned by the Cook County Ordinance are the best selling firearms in America today, including the wildly popular AR & AK semiautomatic sporting rifles.<\/p>\n

Following the ruling of the appellate court, the Illinois Supreme Court granted certiorari. \u00a0The oral arguments were held earlier this year.<\/p>\n