Thomas Maag had a hearing today in front of Judge McGlynn in the Southern District of IL federal court. He’s asking for a partial summary judgement striking down the law.
Here’s the early report from Madison St. Claire Record:
Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly asked U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn to supplement his response to a motion for partial summary judgment with plaintiff depositions he claims dispute the vagueness argument.
Kelly filed a motion to supplement his response on Oct. 10 through Chicago attorney Christopher Wells.
Specifically, Kelly requested McGlynn to consider the Oct. 3 depositions of plaintiffs Matthew Wilson and Scott Pulaski as well as the declaration of expert witness James E. Yurgealitis.
“The deposition testimony from plaintiffs’ own declarants dooms their argument that PICA is unconstitutionally vague …” Wells wrote.
Wood River attorney Thomas Maag filed the motion for partial summary judgment on behalf of the Langley plaintiffs, arguing that the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) is “void for vagueness.”
“In this case, multiple portions of the statute are so vague and ambiguous and to be indecipherable, not just by lay persons, but even by experts,” he wrote.
He added that “most of the act is so vague and ambiguous as to call into serious question the competence in the subject matter of the persons that wrote it.”
Maag argued that not all “assault weapons” use magazines, some magazines can be used interchangeably, and that the regulated weapons are not sufficiently identified.
“The bottom line is that much of the challenged statute is incomprehensible by persons of ordinary intelligence, providing no objective standards, and requiring much guesswork to try to comply with,” he wrote, “which even if arguendo the Act were lawful under Second Amendment standards (which it is not), it provides a chilling effect on the right of law abiding firearm owners, as well as sellers, who, unsure of what is legal, or not, simply refuse to sell to Illinois addresses or residents, or refuse to buy what may well be legal items, based on fear of felony prosecution under an indecipherable statute.”
There’s more. Follow the link to read it all.
Great job, Tom! Thank you for your work on this!
Comments are closed.