Wilson v. County of Cook
2012 IL 112026
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Illinois Cook County Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban (Ordinance 06-O-50) bans assault weapons and large-capacity magazines with a capacity-based and feature-based definition; includes a 90-day compliance period for those lawfully possessed before enactment; prior related ordinances and federal law informed the framework; plaintiffs challenge vagueness, Second Amendment, and equal protection; lower courts dismissed but McDonald v. City of Chicago prompted remand for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of assault weapon definition | Wilson asserts vague terms fail due process notice | Cook County contends terms are clear and contextual | Vagueness not facially permeating text; count I dismissed |
| Second Amendment scope as applied to assault weapons | Second Amendment protects ownership for self-defense; assault weapons banned not categorically unprotected | Ordinance targets dangerous/unusual weapons within state police power | Count IV remanded for further factual development; not decided on merits yet |
| Equal protection challenge to classifications | Ordinance arbitrarily differentiates identical firearms not listed | Ordinance read as a whole—listed, copies/duplicates, or characteristics—no arbitrary discrimination | Count VI properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (established individual right to bear arms, with limitations)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment via due process; right not absolute)
- Heller II, 2011 WL 4551558 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (considered intermediate scrutiny for assault weapon regulation in some analyses)
- Springfield Armory, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 29 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 1994) (vagueness risks when only brand names are banned without functional limits)
- People v. James, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (assault weapon classification influenced by legislative findings on danger)
- Olympic Arms v. Buckles, 301 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2002) (limits of copies/duplicates doctrine to prevent evasion)