Robert Bevis, a gun store owner in Naperville, appealed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall that determined the ban to be “constitutionally sound.”
Bevis’ attorneys told the court that their client would lose his business if the prohibition were allowed to remain in effect while opponents worked to overturn it.
The gun ban was signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Jan. 10. The request for an injunction contended that it failed to meet the bar set by the Supreme Court for when guns may or may not be banned in last year’s landmark Bruen decision.
The ban sets legal penalties for any person in Illinois who “carries or possesses…manufactures, sells, delivers, imports, or purchases any assault weapon or.50 caliber rifle.” Anyone who already purchased one of the banned weapons was ordered to register their firearm with state police.
It banned kits or attachments that increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon. It also added regulations for purchasing so-called “high-capacity magazines” for many firearms. Now the purchase of magazines for long guns is capped at 10 rounds and it’s 15 rounds for handguns.
The controversial law was proposed six months after the Highland Park Fourth of July parade shooting that killed seven and injured 48 others.
Bevis owns and operates Law Weapons and Supply in Naperville, Illinois. His attorneys told the court that his business will suffer and possibly close due to the state action, but that did not sway the appeals court.
Judge Kendall in the lower court ruling declared that the law fit into the parameters set by the Bruen decision “because assault weapons are particularly dangerous weapons…their regulation accords with history and tradition.”
This interpretation flies into the face of the high court’s guidelines, which established that weapons subject to bans must be “dangerous and unusual.” There may be as many as 40 million of the highly popular semiautomatic rifles in circulation in the U.S., which hardly fits the definition of “unusual.”
Bevis’ attorneys told the court that these rifles are “commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Thankfully, the court’s refusal to issue an injunction is hardly the final word on the matter. There are several legal challenges remaining against the new law, meaning multiple opportunities for a court that respects the Constitution to intervene.
Illinois is at the forefront of states attempting to curb the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Its leaders insist on enacting measures that do little or nothing to thwart violent criminals but instead go after those who obey the law.
Bevis, a respected local businessman who serves the community, is just one of many entrepreneurs who will likely be forced out of business if this government overreach is allowed to stand.
Furthermore, the state already has sweeping restrictions on the books covering firearms. Has this stopped Chicago from being one of the most violent cities in the U.S.? Hardly.
The reason is simple. Violent criminals do not check local and state statutes to ensure they are following the law. They are not going to be fingerprinted, they will not undergo a background check, and there will be no waiting period for them to acquire a weapon. These measures serve one purpose alone — to make the anti-gun lobby feel good about doing “something.”
Whether that “something” is effective in pursuing their goals is irrelevant.
