Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Gun owners rights groups ask Supreme Court to review Illinois’ assault weapons ban

Posted in:

Illinois

Gun owners rights groups on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Illinois’ ban on assault weapons.

The petition to the high court was widely expected after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in November affirmed a lower court ruling that allowed the ban on AR-15-style rifles passed by the state Legislature in 2022 to stand. The Illinois State Rifle Association announced that it would take the case to the Supreme Court the day the 7th Circuit ruling was handed down. […]

Petitions filed by both the State Rifle Association and also the National Association for Gun Rights challenge the Illinois law on Second Amendment grounds, claiming the ban violates the Constitution in light of Supreme Court rulings in recent years that have restricted states and municipalities from regulating firearm ownership. The introductory lines of the lawsuit notes the Bruen case from 2022, which struck down a New York law restricting concealed carry licenses for firearms.

“Bruen called on the nation’s legislatures to engage in a sober reassessment of their power to impose burdens on the right to keep and bear arms,” the petition states. “The Illinois legislature ignored that call, and instead of tapping on the regulatory brakes it stomped on the gas and passed a sweeping arms ban that included a ban on the most popular rifle in America.”

Click here to read the petition.

* Illinois State Rifle Association…

The Illinois State Rifle Association followed through on a promise made last January to law-abiding, responsible gun owners that they would challenge Gov. JB Pritzker’s so-called “assault weapons ban” on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional – officially filing their appeal with the United States Supreme Court on Monday in Washington, DC.

On January 17, 2023, the ISRA, Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal lawsuit with the U.S District Court for the Southern District of Illinois challenging the law. After making its way through the legal process and out of District Court, on December 11, 2023, the Seventh Circuit rejected our request for a hearing as expected – paving the way for the certiorari Petition (a formal request to review the case) to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The ISRA remains on the front lines and continues to stand up to Gov. Pritzker and anti-gun legislators in Springfield on behalf of 2.4 million law-abiding, responsible firearms owners in Illinois,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “Our objective from the very beginning of the process that started the moment Gov. Pritzker signed the bill into law – was to take our case to the United States Supreme Court – and today we followed through on that promise and now our case is in the hands of the highest court in the land,” said Pearson.

The ISRA is confident that if the U.S. Supreme Court accepts this case it will rule favorably, given the court’s previous decisions.

“We believe the Supreme Court will take a look at this case given its clear conflict with other Federal court rulings and the Supreme Court’s own historic ruling in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association versus Bruen case,” said Pearson. “It is clear that the Pritzker administration is more focused on making criminals out of law-abiding gun owners instead of addressing an inadequate justice system which is permitting violent criminals to continue victimizing the good citizens of Illinois – and we look forward to the Supreme Court righting this wrong,” Pearson concluded.

At the same time the U.S. Supreme Court certiorari Petition is pending, the ISRA and the other Harrel Plaintiffs are preparing for a trial on the issues before Judge McGlynn in the Southern District of Illinois – currently scheduled to take place in the coming months. So whichever direction this case proceeds, ISRA will be ready to stand up for the rights of Illinoisans.

The ISRA is presently leading the charge as a named plaintiff on two cases and playing a supporting role in an additional five more – totaling 7 cases dealing with constitutional issues and on behalf of law-abiding gun owners in Illinois.

* Tribune…

The National Association for Gun Rights backed a suit originally filed in the Northern District of Illinois challenging both the statewide ban and a local assault weapons ban enacted by the city of Naperville. In February 2023, a federal judge in that case refused to grant a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law pending the outcome of a trial in the case.

The Firearms Policy Coalition backed a separate suit in the Southern District of Illinois that also had support from the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. A judge there granted a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law, saying the ban likely violated the Second Amendment.

Both of those cases, along with others, were part of a consolidated appeal before a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit, which ruled 2-1 in November not to block enforcement of the law.

* More…

Center Square | Illinois gun ban plaintiffs file for hearings with U.S. Supreme Court:

* The Hill | Gun rights group appeals Illinois assault weapon ban to Supreme Court: The writ of certiorari marks the third time the Supreme Court is faced with the Illinois case. Two previous attempts to halt the law under emergency relief were denied in May and December of last year. Qualifications for an emergency ruling are more difficult, so the justices could still agree to hear the case on its normal docket.

* Capitol News Illinois | Gun rights groups ask US Supreme Court to review Illinois’ assault weapons ban: The ban came in reaction to numerous mass shootings around the country in which gunmen used high-power, rapid-fire rifles with large capacity magazines. Among those was a 2022 mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park that left seven people dead and dozens more injured and traumatized.

posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 11:12 am

Comments

Sort of makes me wonder what the grifter-of-old is up to right now. I bet he is preparing to speak outside his Facebook home about now.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 11:26 am
Here’s hoping that sanity returns to this country and SCOTUS rules in favor of the IL law. The lives of many depend upon it.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 11:34 am
-H-W-

I’m sure he has a scheme that doesn’t resolve any issue long term just helps you but only after you pay 499.99 and until it’s tossed out by ILSOTUS.

I swear if SCOTUS (US) takes this up Devores cursing at his liss of cash will be heard on Mars.

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 11:36 am
==followed through on a promise made last January to law-abiding, responsible gun owners==

While being deaf, dumb, and blind to the harm done by previously identified (some mentally ill) irresponsible gun owners.

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 11:45 am
Hopefully they know if the case is unsuccessful stare decisis strengthens.

Comment by Macon Bakin Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 12:02 pm
My bad, read this as ILSC

Comment by Macon Bakin Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 12:03 pm
According to Clay Thomas and the Supreme Court. The ONLY legal gun in this country is a single shot musket. Should be a no-brainer when they take it up. The words “assault weapon” are no where to be found in the Constitution. So if they didnt think of it 200 years ago.

Oh, And “Clay” would not have legally been a gun owner.

Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 12:21 pm
=== if the case is unsuccessful stare decisis strengthens ===

LOL. Tell that to Roe.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 12:25 pm
I’m sick to death every time I see this mantra about “law abiding citizens.” Their fellow “law abiding citizens” are breaking the law in Illinois right now by not following registration requirements.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 12:41 pm
I’m hoping that scotus not only strengthens personal defense options during this epoch of wars and invasions by ruling against the Illinois weapons bans, but I hope they continue to strengthen 1A protections of speech, press and religion against the forces which are promoting this same epoch.

Comment by Box Seats Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 1:05 pm
I do not know about assault weapons ban but I wouldn’t get my hopes up about a striking down of 100% of this law, i.e. the registration requirements may well stand, even if the gun ban goes down. The Supreme Court has left a massive number of unanswered questions after the _Bruen_ decision, so it may use this case to kind of slice up the law and specify more what their special ability to divine the 18th and 19th century, does and does not permit concerning contemporary gun laws. It’s even possible we may see sliding majorities, i.e. five justices are on board with such and such provision but five other justices support such and such provision. Could be a real messy decision in other words.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 1:25 pm
==strengthens personal defense options during this epoch of wars and invasions==

Looking for the right to shoot people?

== epoch of wars and invasions==

Lol. Any more hyperbolic nonsense you want to put out there?

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 1:27 pm
Demoralized, hopefully I’m allowed to defend my comment. (pun intended)

The analysis that people who own defensive weapons are thinking about this in the context of the “right to shoot people” is short-sighted. People want to be able to defend their families, their lives and their property, just like the Israelis did on October 7. It’s almost anti-semitic to assert there is no need to defend oneself with rifles.

If you consider that hyperbolic, I hope you are willing to learn what is happening around the world to different religious populations and begin to understand that self-defense doesn’t mean calling an overextended and underfunded police department.

Comment by Box Seats Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 1:56 pm
==an overextended and underfunded police department.==

Name ONE police department, National Guard regiment, or branch of the armed forces that’s lacking in resources or personnel. I never had (and never will) need to draw a weapon to defend my family or my property.

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 2:18 pm
Jocko, if I may…

CPD has struggled enormously with response time and even responding. Please see this report from Chicago’s Inspector General from last fall. Again, self defense should start with the individual, not an agency, especially for groups that are facing any kind of prejudice and persecution.

https://igchicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Chicago-Police-Department-911-Response-Time-Data-Collection-and-Reporting.pdf

The National Guard, Army, or Marines aren’t answering a 911 call. That’s a silly comment.

My hunch is that Scotus will likely stay simplify the precedent. They all understand the epoch.

Comment by Box Seats Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 2:38 pm
==They all understand the epoch==

There you go with that “epoch” nonsense.

==People want to be able to defend their families==

Who is preventing you from doing that? Because this law certainly isn’t.

==I hope you are willing to learn what is happening around the world to different religious populations and begin to understand that self-defense ==

What in the world are you talking about? You’ve somehow now turned this into a religious issue?

Based on the way you are talking I’d be scared to know that you owned a weapon.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 13, 24 @ 3:07 pm
Demoralized –

yup a lot of us refused to register any of our effected firearms. Just like other forms of civil disobedience from prior movements, a lot of gun owners in this state have said they’ve had enough and EF U to the state. What you gonna do about it?

most of us live in counties where the sheriff and local LE’s are not gonna do anything about it. The SAs are not going to do anything about it.

You, Bob Morgan, the speaker the s. pres and the governor can all pound sand

but I think you miss the 30,000 foot view. the ruling from the 7th is now before the court, enumerating how poorly it is written and reasoned. There are 3 petitions covering 4 cases. You have the Maryland case there covering the shenanigans of the 4th circuit. And now you have the SG asking for cert in the Vanderstock case, which brings the very thing the case I am involved in highlighted in our amici brief to the court in Cargill. And the funny thing is all of this just weeks prior to Cargill — the bump stock case going up for oral argument later this month. I would watch the Cargill case for any tells. And between that and the Rahimi case I think you side is going to have a very bad year followed by an even worse 2025 term.

Comment by Todd Wednesday, Feb 14, 24 @ 8:01 am