Day Four of the federal trial over the "assault weapon" and "large capacity" magazine ban imposed by Illinois lawmakers saw the state's defense take a major hit from one of its own witnesses.
Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey is serving as an expert witness for the state of Illinois. His testimony was meant to buttress the state's argument that the commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and some pistols banned by the Protect Illinois Communities Act are unsuitable for use by civilians because they're "like" the full-auto and select-fire rifles used by the military. But under cross-examination, Dempsey revealed that he's not actually in favor of the gun ban.
Plaintiffs turn to question Dempsey. Asked about personal ownership of sig AR semi-auto rifle with 30 rd mag standard. Purchased additional mags. Has attachments. Added pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash suppressor. Dempsey says he reviewed Illinois gun ban law. Agrees Illinois…
— Bishop On Air (@BishopOnAir) September 19, 2024
So not only did Dempsey acknowledge that he himself owns a rifle and magazines prohibited under Illinois law, he said he'd prefer to see training requirements and "accountability" for owners of semi-automatic long guns instead of an outright ban. That's downright embarrassing for Attorney General Kwame Raoul and his team of legal eagles defending the ban.
The plaintiffs' attorneys used the state's witness to poke another hole in Raoul's argument in a separate exchange. Dempsey testified under direct questioning that during military training, he and other soldiers only used their select-fire rifles in semi-automatic mode; suggesting that select-fire or full-auto isn't really appropriate or necessary for rifles carried in combat. But during cross-examination, Dempsey said the military shouldn't get rid of select-fire rifles, and couldn't explain why the Army's most recent combat rifle is full-auto if that function is unnecessary or unneeded.
Ex. 28 shown, article about new XM7 rifle adopted by army. Rifle depicted does not have burst. No explanation why army adopted full auto if full auto isn't necessary, correct? Talks about army acquisition process. Acknowledges all other army around world issue their army's select…
— Bishop On Air (@BishopOnAir) September 19, 2024
Dempsey also admitted during cross-examination that he's involved with Everytown for Gun Safety. A 2019 press release from the gun control group lists Dempsey as part of its Veterans Advisory Council, which the organization said would "help shape the strategy and direction of both Everytown and Moms Demand Action."
Apparently, Dempsey hasn't been helping to shape the anti-gun group's strategy or direction on semi-auto bans, since he claimed on the stand that he doesn't support an outright ban on modern sporting rifles. And after today's testimony, I wouldn't be surprised if Everytown decides to replace him with someone who will toe the company line instead of offering up even oblique support for the right to possess some of the most popular rifles in the country.
Based on Greg Bishop's reporting inside the courtroom, it sounds like the trial is going very well for the plaintiffs. Judge McGlynn has heard from gun store owners who've talked about the popularity of the guns banned under PICA and the financial hit these shops have taken since the gun and magazine ban took effect. They've heard from a former engineer from Remington who detailed the many differences between the rifles used by the military and those available on the civilian market. And now they've heard from a witness for the state of Illinois who says that he not only owns some of the very same arms the state is trying to prohibit, but that he doesn't actually support the ban itself.
The plaintiffs' attorneys have done excellent work in dismantling the state's argument, and given that McGlynn has previously said the plaintiffs are likely to succeed when he granted an injunction against the enforcement of PICA, I'm pretty confident that the judge is going to rule in favor of the gun owners challenging the semi-auto and magazine ban.
The plaintiffs have also given the Supreme Court justices some additional and important information to mull over when they consider granting cert to a challenge to Maryland's "assault weapon" ban later this fall.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland's ban last month, ruling that "[t]he assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self defense." The testimony offered this week in McGlynn's courtroom has completely discredited that assertion, and will hopefully help persuade at least four justices of the need to address these bans now that it has the opportunity to do so.
