Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

After emergency appeal, US Supreme Court doesn’t block implementation of assault weapons ban

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* New York Times…

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to block two Illinois laws prohibiting the sale of high-powered guns and high-capacity magazines while challenges to them move forward.

The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the court acts on requests for emergency relief. There were no noted dissents.

Several other states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, along with many municipalities, have enacted similar laws in the wake of mass shootings around the nation. Recent shootings, including one at a Texas mall that left eight people dead, have prompted calls for further efforts to address gun violence.

The case that reached the Supreme Court was a challenge to a city ordinance in Naperville, Ill., enacted in August and a state law enacted in January. The ordinance prohibited “the commercial sale of assault rifles,” listing 26 categories of weapons, including AK-47 and AR-15 rifles. The state law covered similar weapons along with high-capacity magazines.

The order is here.

…Adding… Annie Thompson at the attorney general’s office…

We are pleased the Supreme Court has denied the emergency application for injunction pending appeal, and that communities in Illinois will continue to benefit from this important public safety measure. The Attorney General’s office remains committed to defending the Protect Illinois Communities Act’s constitutionality.

* Rep. Morgan…

State Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, is commenting publicly following news that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to halt enforcement of the statewide assault weapons ban while cases against it are decided. Those cases are currently before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Justice Coney Barrett’s decision reinforces what we already knew–that the Protect Illinois Communities Act is, by design, constitutional, and that it comports with legal precedent,” Morgan said. “That this ruling comes from a member of the Court’s conservative majority without noted dissents is the clearest indication yet of the strength of this lifesaving law.”

“The Protect Illinois Communities Act has already prevented the sale of thousands of assault weapons and high capacity magazines in our state. This ruling is a victory in the fight to keep these weapons of war from creating more carnage in communities like mine and countless others across this state.”

* Sen. Morrison…

State Senator Julie Morrison (D-Lake Forest) released the following statement after the nation’s top court refused to block two Illinois laws prohibiting the sale of high-powered guns and high-capacity magazines:

“The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a positive step toward further ensuring military-style weapons – designed for war and not for sport – do not decimate our communities.

“I remain hopeful that this is a positive sign for the Protect Illinois Communities Act and trust in Attorney General Kwame Raoul to work diligently to defend its constitutionality.”

* G-PAC…

Today, the Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC) released the following statement from John Schmidt, a former U.S. Associate Attorney General and member of the Executive Board of G-PAC, in support of the denial from the United States Supreme Court to halt the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“The Supreme Court today rejected the last-ditch effort by a Naperville gun dealer to stop continued enforcement of the Illinois ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines passed in January.

The Court issued a one word order: Denied.

As a strong supporter of the new law, we welcome the Court’s action. The dealer had previously lost in the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. He now has nowhere left to go.

The Illinois law will now remain fully in effect while the dealer appeals to the Court of Appeals from District Judge Virginia Kendall’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction because, she said, the statute is “constitutionally sound”. The Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in the case on June 29. It will also hear arguments in a second case in which District Judge Lindsay Jenkins denied relief against the statute in an action brought by a Chicago gun owner, and in a third case in which Judge Steven McGlynn in East St. Louis issued an injunction against the statute that was immediately stated by the Court of Appeals.

We applaud the Illinois Attorney General and the superb lawyers in his office for their effective representation of the public interest in these cases. Stopping enforcement of the law would allow resumption of a continuing flow of new assault weapons and large capacity magazines into our communities. Sale of those dangerous weapons has now stopped and it should never be resumed.”

* IFC…

The IL Freedom Caucus is issuing the following statement on the US Supreme Court decision to allow enforcement of Illinois’ weapons ban law to continue.

“The US Supreme Court is being consistent with a similar decision in January to allow a New York gun ban to remain in effect while the legal challenges move forward. It is our belief the United States Supreme Court will ultimately decide the constitutionality of the New York law, the Illinois state law as well as the Naperville, IL gun ban. We don’t believe unconstitutional laws should ever be allowed to be enforced, but we remain confident the High Court will rule to uphold the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and prevent state and local governments from enforcing laws that blatantly violate our constitutional rights.”

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:34 am

Comments

Let the courts do their jobs, the legislature passed and the governor signed, its constitutional until the courts have a final ruling to the law.

It’s a good ruling to the now, how SCOTUS rules on the merits of the case later is how process works.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:37 am
Probably not a huge sign of their ultimate disposition. There’s a ton of procedural reasons to not issue a stay right now.

OTOH, this SCOTUS has not been shy about ignoring those procedural reasons to get the outcome they want.

Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:42 am
We can only hope this is a positive sign. Not going to hold my breath with this court, but the lives of so many will depend on a rational ruling.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:43 am
The Supremes rarely grant such emergency appeals. The only times I can think of are where they feel the Circuit court might be dragging their feet. I believe that was actually noted in a denial of a similar request in a gun case last year or the year before. Coincidentally, or probably not, the 7th Circuit set an expedited schedule last week on appeal of the injunction, with hearing set for June. That’s near lightening speed.

Comment by fs Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:43 am
I guess the only question at this point is will the owner of the store shut down, or will he continue to sell weapons. The latter would suggest hypocrisy with regard to the Second Amendment arguments of the NRA.

Comment by H-W Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:45 am
Good day for the good guys

Comment by Stormsw7706 Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 10:57 am
FS —

it was from January of this year in a New york Case

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a557_0pm1.pdf

I think The 7th with Easterbrook, took note of what Alito and Thomas said and that is why we have a expedited schedule for orals on 6/29.

Again keep your eyes on Atkinson in the 7th. it’s been 6 months since argued could drop any day. We have the Bianchi case in the 4th COA which has was argued on 12/6 of last year so another opinion ripe to drop

I would also point out we lost McDonald at the lower court and COA. Heller lost the lower Court, won the COA and won SCOTUS. this is but a skirmish in the longer battle.

Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 11:11 am
I should perhaps say my comment above was largely a snarky response, with regard to this case in particular.

I seem to recall the plaintiff was seeking an emergency appeal because he thinks he cannot sell enough guns to survive as a small business under the proposed law.

That idea seems ludicrous to me - people buy lots of guns and have done so for a very long time. Limiting the types of guns people can buy will not reduce the amount of fear that leads people to buy guns. And it will have no effect on hunters buying guns.

Comment by H-W Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 11:34 am
Although I am on the opposite side from Todd, I think that he is absolutley correct with respect to the Supreme Court’s earlier order in the New York case that he has cited. The expedited schedule for oral arguments in the 7th Circuit undoubtedly influenced today’s Supreme Court’s order.

Comment by Retired SURS Employee Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 11:37 am
last checked, there were a lot of guns not on the banned list to sell. I mean pharmacies stopped selling cocaine when it became illegal, yet there are a few in every city and village selling legal drugs, and a bunch of other stuff. Perhaps, they could sell 6 shooters, or hunting guns, side by side shotguns. I would think a shotgun would be a better home defense weapon than an AR-15 anyway.

Comment by frustrated GOP Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 11:37 am
Thanks for the update and case history details, Todd. It could be an interesting summer, that’s for sure.

Comment by Former ILSIP Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 11:39 am
This was pushed by the same guy who tried giving naperville an ultimatum a few weeks ago.

“Either agree by Monday[May 8th] to start negotiating an end to the ordinance, or face a prolonged court battle that could wind up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

I don’t think he knows how negotiation works.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 11:45 am
=we lost =

Todd with the royal “we” again. Lol

The supreme courts unanimous decision with no dissent IS telling.

Given the courts documented decision to ignore a large portion of an amendment and two centuries of precedent, it is possible that this court is not as consistent as previous courts.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:14 pm
Professor Steve Vladeck’s book The Shadow Docket came out this week. The book criticizes the Court’s recent practice of staying lower court opinions with which it disagrees, before the lower courts finish their work.

The release of the book, which has received substantial publicity in the legal press, could have influenced the Court’s decision not to intervene at this time — and the absence of any recorded dissent.

Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:25 pm
I don’t read anything into the denial of the emergency appeal; just maintains the current (somewhat confused) status quo in Illinois

If anything, it is a sign the court isn’t going to tip it’s hand one way or the other until the full court issues a ruling on one of the cases actually on their docket.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:29 pm
JS –

“We” refers to those who advocate for a robust individual RKBA.

I don’t think its all that telling. Go back and read what they said in the New York case:

“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.”

I think the panel on the 7th took the admonishment to heart to thrawt a thrashing by the Court or an injunction. Bevis was seeking an injunction after loosing twice, it’s at an interlocutory level.

I think 2024 is going to be the year of the gun at the court. You have the bump stock ban up for cert. you have the civil orders of protection up for cert you will have a semi-auto ban up for cert. most likely life tie ban on non-violent felons up for cert, Use of pot up for cert and the FOID issue up for cert.

It will be very interesting to see how all this goes. But Kavanuagh opined against DC’s semi-auto ban. Thomas and Scalia opined against Freidman and how it was wrong. Those are the Authors of Heller and New York, and Altio, who wrote McDonald opined in Catano and in the 2nd admonishment.

Don’t forget Barret and Kavanaugh both decried the use of the shadow docket, so I don’t think 6 go from yes on carry to banning millions of firearms from the AR to the 10/22, 1100 and 870.

Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:32 pm
===I think 2024 is going to be the year of the gun at the court.===

That would be horrific, electorally, for the GOP, not unlike the overturning of Roe in 2022

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:35 pm
=I don’t think its all that telling.=

Good for you.I, on the other hand, do.

=“We” refers to those who =

How many of “those” asked you to speak for them?

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:36 pm
The fact that the court took this long to rule on the emergency petition, without any dissents, is an indication that there was talk about intervening, but they are content, for now, with the pace of proceedings offered by the Seventh Circuit.

What happens at the Seventh Circuit this summer, and post-ruling on the injunction question, will be much more telling.

Comment by JB13 Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:37 pm
– That would be horrific, electorally, for the GOP, not unlike the overturning of Roe in 2022 –

This is called Concern Trolling

Comment by JB13 Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:40 pm
===This is called Concern Trolling===

… and yet in Tennessee the governor moved quickly after their recent mass shooting to “appease” voters, because the blame to gun ownership is gonna come back electorally.

Further?

The voters of ruby red Kansas and abortion enshrinement wasn’t concerned trolling, it was concern that ridiculous GOP wants to reduce women’s rights needed to be stopped.

But, ignore the “guns and abortion” issues, lean into the terribly unpopular takes to both. As one who doesn’t identify with this GOP, my hope is the electoral damage is extensive for the GOP

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 12:51 pm
“How many of “those” asked you to speak for them?”

I did, for one. I wrote a check and joined ISRA as soon as PICA passed. Todd and his team are doing good work.

Comment by sulla Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:01 pm
=I did, for one.=

LOL.

It is high time for the gun obsessed (maybe that is me since I have more than 20 firearms, no assault rifles, but I do own a number of handguns) to actually the gun crime issue. Without forcing other people to carry guns, and without forming vigilante possies. The good guy with a gun thing has not helped in Texas.

So solve the problem and you can bathe yourself in brass and lead for all I care.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 1:11 pm
Everywhere else but at the court, it’s already the Year of the Gun.

Over 200 mass shootings and we’re not through May yet.

Comment by ZC Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:04 pm
I’m waiting for Sam Alito to come out with the comment, “The only way to stop a bad school shooter with a gun is a good school shooter with a gun” without an ounce of irony and a straight face.

Comment by Too cute by half Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:20 pm
“I wrote a check and joined ISRA”

see Barnum, P.T.

Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:20 pm
Are the “abortion belongs to the states” folks okay with this? It’s a good order, many don’t want this state’s hands on the next mass shooting because the assault weapon was bought in Illinois.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:24 pm
It will be interesting to see the compliance rate for the semi-auto endorsement/affidavit deadline. In New York State compliance is low. With the strong possibility of a post-Bruen SCOTUS overturning PICA, Illinois will likely see low rates as well.

“That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners”

https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 2:41 pm
–That data shows massive noncompliance–

To the surprise of nobody, those who yell the loudest about being law-abiding citizens, are in fact not.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 3:28 pm
This is such a good day. Hugh thanks to our AG.

Comment by Shytown Wednesday, May 17, 23 @ 3:31 pm