Abstract
Fewer than seven months after the Highland Park mass shooting, the Illinois General Assembly passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act (“PICA”), a statewide ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Gun-rights advocates have characterized PICA (and other similar strong state gun laws) as unconstitutional laws intentionally enacted to defy the Supreme Court’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. In response to such severe accusations, especially in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, this Note assesses these claims using PICA as a case study. Through an investigation of its legislative history—an investigation that analyzes everything from floor-debate transcripts to committee-hearing recordings—this Note observes that PICA’s drafters and supporters were constitutionally conscientious when they enacted the assault weapon and large-capacity magazine ban.
To help other state legislators avoid accusations of defying their oaths of office, this Note also investigates the Seventh Circuit’s application of Bruen’s text-and-history test to hold PICA to be likely constitutional. This inquiry makes two related findings. First, it would be prudent for state legislators to articulate their purpose for enacting a firearms ban in the text of the ultimate bill. Second, to accomplish this first task, state legislators should avoid resorting to procedural shortcuts—like the gut and replace tactic used to pass PICA—to enact firearms bans. If constitutionally conscientious state legislators wish to respond meaningfully to gun violence with strong gun regulation, they must still respect the legislative procedural processes. Ultimately, even if the ends are legitimate, the means must always be proper.
Citation
Timothy J. Southam,
Finding a Purpose in Bruen's World,
74 Duke Law Journal
1305-1346
(2025)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol74/iss5/3
