Judge Questions Gun Ban Impact on Black Victims of 1917 East St. Louis Riot
- Judge Stephen McGlynn oversaw a trial concerning the constitutionality of Illinois' gun ban, which restricts over 170 semi-automatic firearms.
- During the proceedings, McGlynn reflected on the 1917 East St. Louis race riot, where many Black victims suffered violence and property destruction.
- The case highlights the intersection of historical racial violence and contemporary gun rights debates, with a ruling expected soon.
The federal judge, Stephen McGlynn, presided over a bench trial regarding the constitutionality of Illinois' Protect Illinois Communities Act, which prohibits the sale and possession of over 170 types of semi-automatic firearms and certain magazines. During the trial's final day, McGlynn reflected on the historical context of the 1917 East St. Louis race riot, where over 30 Black individuals were killed and numerous homes were destroyed. He emphasized the importance of understanding this history, urging people to visit the sites of the riots. The plaintiffs' attorney, David Sigale, highlighted the significance of these historical events in relation to Second Amendment rights, noting that many individuals have been victimized due to their race or gender. The trial also touched upon contemporary issues, including a recent incident involving an international gang in Aurora, Colorado, which showcased the challenges of public safety and the effectiveness of current gun laws. Retired Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey, the final witness for the defense, argued for the importance of training and accountability over outright bans on firearms. He acknowledged the military's preference for semi-automatic fire but admitted a lack of knowledge regarding the differences between civilian and military firearms. Sigale remarked that the state legislature is unlikely to change the law based solely on individual opinions. As the trial concluded, litigants were given 30 days to submit additional information, after which McGlynn could issue a ruling, potentially including a permanent injunction against the law. The case raises critical questions about gun rights, historical injustices, and the ongoing debate surrounding public safety and firearm regulations.