>> A federal judge has ruled Illinois's ban on semiautomatic guns as unconstitutional to protect Illinois Communities.

Act has since 2023 banned assault weapons as well 15 round handgun magazines.

10 round long gun magazines.

Gun owners claim that the ban infringes on their constitutional right to bear arms while gun control advocates argue that it's common sense way to protect Illinois residents from guns that are designed to be extraordinarily lethal.

Here with more on this recent ruling, John Schmidt, a member of that gun violence prevention, PAC's executive also former associate U.S. Attorney general.

And then joining us via Zoom is Dan Eldridge.

President of federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois.

He is among the gun shop owners suing Illinois in this federal case.

Thanks to each of you for joining us.

And and I'm going to actually begin with you zoom.

You have called this a victory.

How major is it in that?

Do expect it will set a precedent.

>> Behind me that, you know, this was a major win, judgment claims said a number of places in this 168 Page ruling, the peak is not unconstitutional front.

The Second Amendment must be enjoyed.

I think that we can better prepared in the state.

We have the facts and constitutional law on our side and we want play that more than just dunks.

>> Now I'm going to take this over to you.

What did he mean by more than just guns?

And by the way, this is not particularly a surprise ruling on its not a surprise to anyone.

I think everyone would have been a maze if and had not joined the statute.

He did it a year and a half ago after the statute was passed, he enjoyed it even though at that 0, 2, other federal judges had come out the other way.

>> His injunction was immediately state by the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals and took it up on review and reversed it.

And that decision then went up to the Supreme Court United States with didn't review it.

So his injunction last time around never had any impact.

This time.

He has stated himself for 30 days.

So what's going to happen and that 30 day period?

I think the attorney general who has already filed appeal will ask the 7th circuit to extend the stay.

>> I would be very surprised.

And I think the plaintiffs in the case would be very surprised if the 7th circuit doesn't extend it.

So the court of Appeals will then set a briefing and argument on this new injunction and probably hear arguments sometime next year.

>> So translation right now, there's a 30 minute period regardless of this ruling where the has been ruled unconstitutional, that the law is still in effect in new expect that that is going to be continued.

>> Dan, that to you, Dean, do you believe that this will go into effect in 30 days?

No ban on so-called assault weapons ban in Illinois?

Are you, therefore, I preparing this sell the sort of weapons for holiday shoppers.

>> No, we have no expectations of that.

But going to clarify a couple things here.

The >> what happened last year was we want to preliminary injunction from just when the Northern district cases lost motions for preliminary injunction.

>> And our preliminary injunction was stayed.

That was a very brief.

You look at it by the 7th Circuit Judge Easterbrook himself said that he was leaving the door open to being convinced.

Then these are not military weapon.

So it was really both of these.

>> We're very, very preliminary maneuvering and its.

>> Frankly, astonishing to somebody, somebody who's not familiar with the proceedings federal court that 18 months later, we're finally getting to the meat of the of the merits here.

>> as you said, there's been a lot of legal wrangling rulings back and forth.

When will this be settled?

Dan, is this something that you believe is going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court?

>> Well, there's a lot of moving parts so our kids will proceed.

got stops.

Firms were before we get there.

Yes, yeah.

Well know our case will proceed to the 7th circuit.

state has already filed a notice of appeal which we expected answer to previous question.

No word.

We have no expectations that we will get another so-called Freedom under the injunction.

We do have a week when we could.

>> In fact, so and transfer these prohibited items back in April and May of We don't anticipate that happening again.

So what will happen now is, you know, our case, it'll go to the 7th circuit, some candle.

>> But a 3 judge panel doesn't exist anymore.

Just and Wood has retired from the judiciary.

She's retired from the bench.

So right now it's where the same panel is split.

Fifty-fifty between used a rope rent.

Perhaps your earlier guests can inform us on how these panels are made up.

We just don't what the end will be.

>> You don't know what the panel beaten already know.

The decision.

I want to go to something that you do know.

This is a law that has now been effect for nearly 2 years.

What has the impact Well, the biggest impact is you cannot go out in Illinois if you're a primo are like the Highland Park Killer who wants to find a gun to kill as many people as possible and buy an assault weapon Ken Ar 15 round and you go up to 30, 40 Round magazine capacity.

It hasn't stopped any law-abiding citizen from going in and buying all the guns that they need for purposes of self-defense, Mr. Eldridge and his colleagues have a very active business and they can and should continue to happen.

>> What we've learned is we can stop the sale of these weapons, which we have learned saved lives, I think is save lives.

And to the extent the primo's of the world have not been able to go out and buy those weapons in Illinois, most incredible band and that would be even better.

But I think it is save lives in on the act.

>> your reaction to that by the way, would be to alleged Highland Park shooter for really the mass shooting during Independence Day that set this line motion.

>> I think it's quite a stretch to say save lives for a number of reasons.

There are nationwide some if you include the full spectrum of of weapons banned under this act, there's probably 30 or 50 million weapons in circulation.

So Holt of new sales transfers knowingly.

But if there's a lot of water in the pool already in most of these are the fast majority of these are below mind, citizens for for lawful purposes has it saved lives?

let's look at the as they contribute to 2 homicides.

Firms related homicides are generally about 11,000 a year book justified unjustified.

But that's that's been on suicide.

Firearms generally in that range.

Long rifles, shotguns are responsible for something like 400, the vast preponderance of of misuse of firearms is in the not the rifle.

So.

>> It's a stretch to say that saved that it's a funny lines and more importantly, is massive, massive Richmond of of constitutional Rights.

>> John, last word to you.

We have a very short bit of time left, but you again have argued that these weapons deserve special treatment because they are so very lethal.

Now, do you have an expectation you brought up a federal Under a Trump presidency?

Is there any likelihood know?

>> But we know for a fact that during the 10 years the federal ban was in effect.

We had a substantial reduction in mass shootings in America and we can look at states that have banned assault weapons and high capacity magazines and see the same effect.

But no, I have no optimism.

under President Trump, we're going to see federal That was the last word.

Thank you again for your time.

That is John Schmidt with the gun violence Prevention.

>> Political Action Committee