Dubbed the Protect Illinois Communities Act, the statute bans so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines statewide. Plaintiffs in the suit against the law wanted the high court to allow the continued sale of the firearms and accessories while legal challenges advanced.
However, the law will now remain in place as the appeal of five consolidated lower court rulings is decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit also challenges a city ordinance in Naperville that bans the sale of “assault rifles.”
Another suit briefly suspended the state law recently, but the regulation was almost immediately restored.
Hope for gun rights advocates emerged after the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), filed an application in late April for an injunction with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She receives emergency requests from the Seventh Circuit.
Barrett then referred the application for an injunction to the full court for consideration. However, the high court declined to grant the injunction.
No reason was given for the court’s lack of action. The approval of five justices is needed for the injunctive relief to be granted, and its denial means the opportunity is now over.
Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the NFGR, voiced her disappointment in the high court’s failure to act. She emphasized, however, that the group is far from giving up its fight against the overreaching Illinois law.
“Any action the Supreme Court would have taken at this point would only have been temporary and not on the merits of the case itself. Clearly, the Supreme Court is watching the case closely and we look forward to appealing very soon on the merits if the 7th Circuit rules against us — as the signs currently point to.”
It was Jan. 10 when the state passed the sweeping ban. The law prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, and importation of “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. Exceptions are embedded for law enforcement, military personnel, and specific professionals with training.
The law names the AR-15 and AK-47 as two of the semiautomatic rifles covered under the ban. Ominously for gun owners, it requires those who legally possess such weapons to register with the Illinois State Police.
The Supreme Court’s lack of action on the surface may be surprising. It was just last summer when the bench’s Bruen decision created the largest restoration of gun rights in many years. Justices ruled that gun control laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of regulations.
This decision led to several states enacting new statutes to work around the ruling, and Second Amendment advocates immediately filed suit.
However, that was followed by three separate occasions including this week’s where the court rejected aggressive actions on emergency requests. These only feature minimal briefings and no oral arguments before the court could possibly step in on challenges from gun rights groups.
A case earlier this year involving New York gun laws rendered a similar result. It came from two other emergency requests filed with the high court. In rejecting this previous bid, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued a statement telling the gun rights supporters that they “should not be deterred.”
It added that declining to grant an injunction was based on procedure and not the case’s merits.
The unsigned order declining to intervene in the Illinois case is definitely a setback for gun rights in Illinois, though the hope is that it is only temporary. The case could end up back before the Supreme Court on its merits, and a decision would carry a nationwide impact.
