* CBS News…
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block an Illinois law banning assault-style weapons, leaving the measure in place while proceedings before a federal appellate court continue.
The decision from the justices marks the second time they have declined to halt Illinois’ statewide ban, which a gun rights advocacy group and gun shop owner argued violates the Second Amendment. It has also left in place a similar ordinance in Naperville, a suburb of Chicago.
The unsigned order from the court rejecting the request from the pro-Second Amendment organization comes on the heels of the latest spate of shootings, on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, campus and in Austin and San Antonio, Texas. The shootings have reignited now-familiar calls from President Biden for Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
* Courthouse News…
For the second time, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday turned down an opportunity to pause an assault weapons ban in Illinois implemented in response to a deadly shooting. […]
The National Association for Gun Rights, a gun store, and the store’s owner sued Naperville — and later Illinois — claiming the new ordinance violated the Second Amendment. Two lower courts refused to block the regulations, leading to the group’s first trip to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket.
The justices’ denial left the law in place while the challenge was under review. While this case was proceeding two other lower courts upheld the law in five different cases challenging the ban. The Seventh Circuit consolidated all six cases.
In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court declined to grant preliminary relief, finding that the gun advocacy group was not likely to prevail on its Second Amendment challenge.
The gun advocacy group then returned to the high court for relief. The group says the law would ban the most popular rifle in America, and therefore, in unlawful because it bans weapons in common use.
Click here to read the Court’s order.
* NPR…
The court’s action on Thursday, leaving the Illinois law in place, is not a decision on the merits of the case; as of now, there have been no conflicting decisions by lower appeals courts, and the justices may well have felt there was no need to intervene without such a conflict.
This post will likely be updated.
…Adding… GPAC…
Gun rights groups continue to try to block the new law, even after repeated failures. And they continue to get nowhere. They asked the Supreme Court for relief before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the new law and the Supreme Court said no. Now after the Court of Appeals has upheld the law they’ve gone back and asked again. Not surprisingly the Supreme Court again said no. No amount of flailing around by losing lawyers alters the basic fact that sale in Illinois of these destructive weapons continues to be blocked completely.
…Adding… Protect Illinois Communities…
Once again, the US Supreme Court has refused to listen to requests from extremist organizations to block the Protect Illinois Communities Act, a commonsense gun safety measure to keep assault weapons off of our streets. This law helps save lives, and every day it remains in place is a step toward keeping weapons of war out of our neighborhoods.”
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:04 pm:
Hmmmm weren’t we told repeatedly that SCOTUS was going to reverse lol?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:10 pm:
===SCOTUS was going to reverse lol? ===
No decision has been based on the merits. But, yeah, I think some folks’ expectations were that this law would be blocked before it took effect.
Oops.
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:12 pm:
I said at the time it made no sense to appeal an interlocutory order but their camp thought they knew better.
- fs - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:13 pm:
They’re not likely to take any of these interlocutory attempts. I supposed if you’re the gun groups you take a swing whenever you can, but until there’s a final decision on the merits it’s going to be a lot of swing and miss.
There are cases in other Circuits much closer to an appellate decision on the merits, and I suspect that’s where we might see the issue eventually taken up. The big question will be what the composition of the Court will be when that eventually happens.
- ZC - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:21 pm:
This is huge though, regardless of what the Court ultimately decides, because (anyone check me if I’m wrong) the law now goes into effect in a few weeks. That’s a lot of compliance gun owners have to start observing. Of course it depends also how much the Pritzker administration and law enforcement want to immediately push this while the law still has a very uncertain future before the high Court.
- Shytown - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:26 pm:
I’ll take it. Good news.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:30 pm:
“Of course it depends also how much the Pritzker administration and law enforcement want to immediately push this”
The enforcement part is a non-issue, as no one including the ISP (now) knows who owns the weapons/accessories that cause the owner to need to fill out the affidavit.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:32 pm:
===The enforcement part is a non-issue, as no one including the ISP (now) knows who owns the weapons/accessories that cause the owner to need to fill out the affidavit.===
It’s an issue if you’re pulled over and one of those unregistered guns is in your car.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:50 pm:
=as no one including the ISP (now) knows who owns the weapons/accessories that cause the owner to need to fill out the affidavit.=
You are only kidding yourself.
=It’s an issue if you’re pulled over and one of those unregistered guns is in your car.=
Or someone reports you to the ISP.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:52 pm:
@Donnie Elgin
Nice to see you’re advocating breaking the law.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:57 pm:
“Or someone reports you to the ISP”
I take it that JS Mill has never been to a shooting range, where law-abiding citizens focus their attention 100% on the safe and accurate discharge of their weapons. No one and I mean no one cares what weapons others are discharging. So this fantasy of eavesdropping and informing on neighbors remains just a story from places like cold War East Germany.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 2:58 pm:
===So this fantasy of eavesdropping and informing on neighbors===
Meh. I took it to mean spouses.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
“Nice to see you’re advocating breaking the law”
Friend I’m just minding my own business and assuming others like me are acting in good faith.
- Papa2008 - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 3:11 pm:
Yep. Unhappy wives could have a field day.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 3:19 pm:
“no one including the ISP (now) knows who owns the weapons”
Lets not forget the wonderfulness in all of this, Devore having handed over to the government a nice big list of names they could start with.
- Norseman - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 3:25 pm:
We can only hope that sanity has returned and the sale of these slaughter weapons will be done in Illinois.
- Todd - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 3:51 pm:
==I said at the time it made no sense to appeal an interlocutory order but their camp thought they knew better.==
Big, yea problem is there is a race to be the “first” to the Court on this issue to make their bones in the 2A world. There will be cert petitions filed, I am doubtful they will take them without a final judgement, but I suspect, Judge McGlynn is looking to deny the MPI for registration, and fast track the 2A merits part of the case.
Then its up on appeal and hopefully ready for the 24-25 session. Duncan out of Cali is ahead and Bianchi was argued a year ago in the 4th COA and a decision could come down at any time.
And there are 2 decisions that will comedown this term that could impact things Rahimi has been argued Cargil will be up in Feb/Mar.
- Jocko - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 4:08 pm:
==a shooting range, where law-abiding citizens focus their attention 100%==
Welp, they’re not doing that at TopGolf
http://tinyurl.com/5crayspk
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 4:21 pm:
Welp, they’re not doing that at TopGolf
from the article…
“Littleton does not have a valid firearm owner’s ID card or a concealed carry license, officials said”
Being a law-abiding citizen I really can’t speak to the actions of those who refuse to follow the law.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 4:31 pm:
==where law-abiding citizens==
I know some of you love to throw out this “law abiding citizen” garbage but if you aren’t following the law then you are not law abiding.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 6:29 pm:
Oh Donnie, you take it wrong and I am not surprised.
First- avid Hunter and CCL possessor here. I shot fairly often, pretty clearly you don’t. It is a fairly social activity, people are always checking out others gear. I shot my first .50 Barrett at a range when the owner and I struck up a conversation and he let me fire a couple of rounds. Happens often. These don’t strike me as the people that will report you, but maybe you go to some strange place to shoot if you go at all.
And I was talking about spouses, jilted girlfriends/boyfriends, angry neighbors.
Also, what @Demoralized said plus 1.
- Fivegreenleaves - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 6:49 pm:
==I know some of you love to throw out this “law abiding citizen” garbage but if you aren’t following the law then you are not law abiding.I know some of you love to throw out this “law abiding citizen” garbage but if you aren’t following the law then you are not law abiding.==
I’ve followed every law in regards to my guns. The law isn’t meant to stop people like me, yet I follow it anyone.
Those who it’s meant to stop are the ones who won’t follow it. Btw, I’m part of the .1% that registered their guns back in October. As much as I believe the law is wrong, it’s not worth going to prison over.
- Fivegreenleaves - Thursday, Dec 14, 23 @ 6:51 pm:
==I know some of you love to throw out this “law abiding citizen” garbage but if you aren’t following the law then you are not law abiding.==
I’ve followed every law in regards to my guns. This law isn’t meant to stop people like me, yet I followed it anyway.
Those who it’s meant to stop are the ones who won’t follow it. Btw, I’m part of the .1% who registered their guns back in October. As much as I believe this law is wrong, it’s not worth going to prison over.
(I hate auto-correct.)