A state appeals court has tossed a legal challenge to some Illinois firearms ownership restrictions, saying the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee people the right to own so-called "short-barreled rifles."
On Aug. 13, a three-justice panel of the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court ruled against the challenge to state law by plaintiff Robert Dorman and his attorney in the action, Thomas Maag, of Wood River.
Dorman is a former Madison County employee who has been embroiled in multiple legal actions against the county since the county board removed him from his post as the county's Technology Director in 2020.
Attorney Thomas Maag
| The Maag Law Firm
Maag in recent years has launched multiple lawsuits against the state over its firearms ownership restrictions, including an action challenging the ban on so-called "assault weapons." In those lawsuits, Maag has asserted the state has acted in defiance of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that Second Amendment advocates say have restored the historically broad right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
In this particular action, Maag and Dorman challenged an Illinois state law banning the ownership of rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long or shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long.
The lawsuit was filed nominally against Madison County State's Attorney Tom Haine and Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, who Dorman said are tasked by the state with criminally enforcing the ban on such weapons.
In the lawsuit, Dorman says he wishes to buy and own two guns, a "model 1911 style pistol" and a "model 224 rifle" with barrel lengths that would run afoul of the state law.
Dorman asserts the state law unconstitutionally infringes on his rights to own the weapons for self-defense.
In response, Haine sought to dismiss the action against him and his office, because he said Dorman can't credibly argue Haine or his office have violated his rights or will violate his rights, because Dorman doesn't own any of the prohibited weapons.
Kelly and the ISP, who are represented by the Illinois Attorney General's office, directly defended the law in court, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court has "determined that short-barreled shotguns fell outside of the protection of the (Second Amendment)," so therefore the state should be free to ban the ownership of "short-barreled rifles," too.
The state argued "short-barreled rifles are similarly concealable weapons that are likely used for criminal purposes."
Madison County Judge Ronald S. Motil sided with the state on the questions concerning the constitutionality of the law, agreeing the state has the authority to ban such weapons under the Second Amendment.
Dorman's action fared no better on appeal, as justices agreed that "federal courts have consistently held that short-barreled rifles are not protected by the (Second Amendment.)"
The decision was issued as an unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23, which limits its use as precedent.
Moore and his fellow appellate justices agreed with the state that ownership of short-barreled rifles is not constitutionally protected, even under recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the cases known as Bruen and Heller.
Those decisions, taken together, generally require states and other governments to prove any restrictions on gun ownership to show their regulations are in keeping with historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms at the time the Constitution was amended to protect such rights. And the rulings generally block states and other governments from banning weapons which are commonly owned and used for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and which are not "dangerous and unusual."
In their ruling, the appellate justices said the Supreme Court and other federal courts have consistently ruled that short-barreled weapons don't meet that criteria and so are not protected by the Second Amendment from state bans, like Illinois'.
They pointed to prior Supreme Court rulings which indicate the courts believe short-barreled firearms have been designed to be concealable and are likely to be used to commit crimes.
"While the plaintiff argues that handguns, which are protected under the second amendment (sic), are similar to short-barreled rifles in that they are both concealable, the Supreme Court has recognized that short-barreled rifles are weapons not typically possessed for lawful purposes, e.g., self-defense, unlike handguns," Moore wrote. "This supports the defendant’s position that there is no meaningful constitutional distinction between short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns and, thus, the second amendment (sic) does not protect either."
The court also agreed that Haine should not have been sued, as Dorman "has failed to articulate any argument ... to assert standing for his claim against Haine."
Since he was fired from Madison County government in 2020, Dorman has locked horns with Haine numerous times in court. According to information released earlier this spring by Haine's office, the county has spent more than $480,000 in the past four years defending against 20 lawsuits filed by Dorman and former Madison County Administrator Doug Hulme, who was also removed by the county board at the same time as Dorman.
At least 15 of those lawsuits have been resolved in favor of Haine and other Madison County government officials and related defendants.