Judge’s questions during IL gun ban arguments gives rights advocates ‘hope’

By Greg Bishop | The Center Square
The Center Square

(The Center Square) – With Illinois’ gun ban now in the hands of a three judge panel of the federal appeals court, some are plotting out what’s next.

Monday’s oral arguments featured challenging questions from Judge Amy St. Eve for both sides.

“Why haven’t you waived or forfeited that legislative fact argument by not raising it until your reply brief?” St. Eve asked the attorney defending the state law during oral arguments.

“You said 14 to 18 million legally own them for legal purposes, self-defense. But there are also these statistics on the other side. Does that factor in with the nuanced approach or the societal concerns?” St. Eve later asked plaintiffs arguing against the law.

St. Eves is new to the panel after Diane Wood, who ruled against the plaintiffs in 2023, retired. The other judges on the panel split in 2023, Judge Michael Brennan with the plaintiffs and Judge Frank Easterbrook with the state.

Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde said it’s hard to tell which way the case goes with St. Eve on the panel.

“We went in there expecting to lose. We walked out of there with hope that, you know, that St. Eve was being reasonable and honest in her questions,” Vandermyde told The Center Square.

The district judge found the law unconstitutional last year after a four-day bench trial and thousands of pages of evidence and testimony.

The state appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The U.S. Department of Justice filed in support of the plaintiffs and against the state. But with a new three-judge appeals panel, Vandermyde said anything is possible.

“I was with some other guys that have been involved in the case, and we all kind of came to the conclusion that it’s 50/50 on a crapshoot and it all centers around what does St. Eve do,” Vandermyde said.

Dan Eldridge with Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois said having the U.S. Department of Justice on their side is good for them.

“If we lose, that means the solicitor general, John Sauer, would petition for cert with the Supreme Court,” Eldridge told The Center Square. “The solicitor general generally gets deference from the Supreme Court on cert petitions, and that would really, really increase the likelihood that we get shoved to the front of the line with the Supreme Court.”

It’s unclear when the appeals court will make their ruling.