Naperville issued the sweeping restrictions in a city ordinance last July, and it preceded the statewide ban signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Jan. 10. Both targeted semiautomatic rifles, and the state statute requires persons who already own them to register with state police.
The local fight is led by Naperville businessman Robert Bevis, the owner of Law Weapons and Supply. His previous request before a federal appeals court in Chicago was denied by U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall. He asked that the “assault weapons” ban be put on hold while legal challenges are carried out, but she ruled that the prohibition is “constitutionally sound.”
Bevis did not stop there, asking the Supreme Court for an injunction until his filings against the Naperville ordinance and the Illinois ban are resolved.
Enter Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees the circuit in which Bevis’ lawsuits against Naperville and the state are being heard. She asked the town’s government to respond to his emergency request for an injunction against the law on Monday.
She gave the city until May 8 to respond to the filing’s claims that their ban violates the Constitution.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) expressed its gratitude that the jurist sees the case as important enough to look further into. Dudley Brown of NAGR, a plaintiff in the Naperville case, said “we’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously.”
NAGR’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied in February, and then the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the group’s request to halt enforcement of the law while it made its way through the courts.
This new development is a strong indication that the high court may be inching closer towards accepting a case involving state-level “assault weapons” bans. Ten states now have sweeping restrictions on most semiautomatic firearms, and the high court’s intervention would bring clarity to the issue.
In many instances across the nation, federal judges reached wildly differing decisions in these cases. Last year the high court issued its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. This decision laid the groundwork for several findings by judges that specific gun laws were unconstitutional.
Justices also ordered the Fourth Circuit to rehear a case that previously upheld Maryland’s “assault weapons” restrictions.
In Illinois, its ban encountered strong legal resistance and it was blocked in both state and federal courts. There has been significant protest from citizens advocating for Second Amendment freedoms, and even state sheriffs are closing ranks against the law.
A majority of Illinois sheriffs now say they will not enforce the ban due to its violating the Constitution.
Barrett’s request for a response from Naperville does not guarantee high court action. In fact, most cases where a brief is requested do not ultimately come before the bench. It is noteworthy, however, that this court has shown that it leans in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, and it would be a huge win for the plaintiffs if their case was heard by the Supreme Court.
As for NAGR, the advocacy group expressed its belief that the Constitution will prevail in this case. Brown noted that “any ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ is plainly unconstitutional, and now it is on the city of Naperville to explain the legal justification in their ban.”
“Of course, there isn’t any,” he added. “The bans were ludicrous from the start, and if Illinois had any sense, they would wave the white flag now and save us all some time.”
