National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois, challenges both local and state prohibitions on these popular sporting rifles. An injunction is sought against enforcement of the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) by NAGR, Robert C. Bevis and Law Weapons, Inc. d/b/a Law Weapons and Supply.
This is the second such request to the high court for injunctive relief, but the initial query was turned away in May. Signs are much more positive that this second attempt may be successful.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett responded to the emergency application by granting a briefing in the case. All eyes will focus on how the high court reacts, as this may portend the future of legislative overreaches against semi-automatic firearms.
PICA banned the sale of these rifles in the state, though it allowed those who already legally owned them to keep them. The sweeping ban covers over 160 firearms.
However, it required gun owners who already went through the legal process and passed a background check to register their weapons with the state police.
This mandate met with massive resistance. Thus far, less than one percent of affected gun owners have followed state orders. The window for registration has been open for more than two months and closes on Jan. 1, 2024.
Robert Bevis is at the forefront of this effort to preserve Second Amendment rights for all law-abiding Illinois residents. He owns Naperville’s Law Weapons and has suffered tremendously since the city enacted its semi-automatic weapon ban in the fall of 2022.
Bevis describes his business as being on “life support.” He said Law Weapons is desperate for relief “so we can at least try and rebuild.”
Interviewed by The Center Square, the businessman called the local and state laws “egregious.” Upon examination, “they are literally slapping the Supreme Court right in the face.”
The arguments presented by the plaintiffs are many and convincing. They note that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals erred when the majority held that the banned weapons are not firearms.
The appeals court on Nov. 3 ruled that semi-automatic firearms are not covered by the Second Amendment because it believed they are not used for self-defense.
The sporting rifles and high-capacity magazines, the court wrote, “are much more like machine guns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense.”
The plaintiffs strongly disagreed and made their points to Justice Barrett.
They asserted the common use test is erroneous, that the court ruling was in opposition to 2022’s Supreme Court Bruen decision mandating how gun control laws are to be judged, that the court resorted to “stealth interest balancing” and that arms were prohibited merely for resembling those previously employed by the armed forces.
Bevis and his co-plaintiffs declared that they “and hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Illinois citizens are suffering irreparable injury because their fundamental right to keep and bear arms is being infringed.”
They asked that the court grant injunctive relief against the local and state laws.
NAGR Executive Director Hannah Hill noted that Barrett could unilaterally grant the requested temporary injunction. She told The Center Square that “basically we’re asking that the Supreme Court suspend the enforcement of that law until the case is decided.”
Bevis is greatly encouraged by Barrett’s asking for a briefing and telling the defendants to present arguments as to why the preliminary injunction should not be granted.
This current case is one of several challenging the state ban as well as the Chicago suburb of Naperville’s gun restrictions.
