Illinois assault weapons ban halted in Supreme Court
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett will rule whether to temporarily halt the enforcement of the assault weapons ban in Illinois after Robert Bevis, a gun shop owner asked for an injunction.
In January, Gov. JB Pritzker signed an Illinois assault weapons ban into law making it illegal to possess or distribute assault weapons and high capacity magazines in the state.
Now, four months later, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the ban have appealed rulings allowing the bill to stand in the Supreme Court where it is currently being evaluated by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The case is being heard in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The law came in response to the deadly Highland Park shooting last July where a gunman openly fired with an assault rifle at the parade. The assault weapons ban prohibits the manufacture, distribution and possession of more than 190 types of assault rifles as well as large-capacity magazines like the one used in the Highland Park shooting that enabled the shooter to fire off more than 70 rounds in a few minutes.
Immediately after the ban known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) was signed into law, gun owners across Illinois filed motions to halt the ban on the claim that it violates the second amendment.
Robert Bevis, a gun shop owner in Naperville challenged the state law under this precedent, but according to reporting by ABC7 Chicago, Bevis has since failed to persuade federal judges in Chicago of his case. He has now asked the Supreme Court for an injunction that will temporarily halt enforcement of the ban until his case is heard.
Barrett is evaluating the legislation to determine whether she will issue a temporary stay on the ban until the court can evaluate its merit. According to federal law, an injunction can be issued in the Supreme Court if a justice deems there is a likelihood the case may be successful.
On May 1, Barrett requested more information from the state and Chicago before she proceeds with a decision.
Last week, the Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Action Committee (G-PAC) filed an amicus brief in support of the ban. However, the National Association for Gun Rights continues to pursue its overturn.
Earlier this year, plaintiffs in the case made a substantial stride when the United States District Court judge Stephen McGlynn temporarily blocked enforcement of the ban. McGlynn’s decision came a week after Lindsay Jenkins, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois, denied a motion to halt enforcement of the ban.
It is up to Barrett to decide whether to halt the ban until the case is heard by the Supreme Court.
Vicki • May 16, 2023 at 5:21 pm
I’ve done everything to verify it’s me. The link didn’t work so I copied and pasted it in my browser. What’s up with that ?
Vicki • May 16, 2023 at 5:12 pm
Why do people ignore ‘well regulated’ in our 2nd amendment ? Talk about ignorance ! Please re-read the 2nd amendment, Robert.
Andrew • May 16, 2023 at 2:24 pm
If these idiots say the ar15 is a weapon of war how come we can still buy a 1911 and a m1 grand rifle which are weapons of war
Bob K. • May 16, 2023 at 10:21 am
When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, nearly every household had arms identical or equivalent to what the armed forces were issued at the time. The “Puckle Gun” was invented a few years before then and it fired 6-11 shots before needing to be reloaded. During the Civil-War, civilians had access to lever action rifles and single shot rifles, both chambered for center-fire cartridges, while the armed forces were being issued muzzle-loaders. The argument that civilians shouldn’t have military style or “high-capacity” arms is moot. The “gun-control” movement is only about one thing…CONTROL over the American people. Fear a government the fears your gun!
Terry H Goodall • May 16, 2023 at 8:45 am
It’s a shame we have to keep fighting for our rights. because of these ignorant politicians. No laws that they put in place will stop the criminal or the mentally unstable.
David F • May 16, 2023 at 8:02 am
What kind of stupid tries to ban an “Assault Rifle” when ANY rifle has killed less than 250 people in 50 years! That’s like 3 months in Chicago and they are not using rifles. I don’t think it even takes a lawyer in the writings from the SCOTUS.
Militia is the everyone.
Arms are not black powder muskets, ANY commonly owned firearm
The right of the people to carry outside the home.
There needs to be real repercussions for enacting laws known to be unconstitutional, which is clearly the case (in their email exchanges) FOI’s rock!
Roel Rodriguez • May 15, 2023 at 2:37 pm
Thank God for Trump Supreme Court Judge appointees. Hopefully, this will be over and done with. Criminals are the problem. Not the law abiding gun owners.
Robert Bringer • May 15, 2023 at 2:28 pm
The Second Amendment doesn’t say that I can only be armed with .22 single or single shot 410 shotgun. The Second Amendment was written to restrict our government from legislating laws that restrict my right to own any firearm. AG Garland is using the national firearm act of 1934 as the reason to restrict the AR. The reason for the act of 1934 was the Thompson machine gun which is full automatic firing all rounds with one pul of the trigger. The AR is a firearm which requires you to pull the trigger for each firing of a bullet. In my opinion, my right to own a full auto firearm such as the Thompson machine gun has been restricted and should our military decide a military coup, the American citizens would be at a great disadvantage. All law abiding should be able to purchase any firearm which they believe will keep them safe from any attacker.
The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual citizen is the only person responsible to keep them and any person with them safe from predators. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a law enforcement person does not or is not required to exchange his or her life for any citizen, one life for another.
With illegal or undocumented immigrants crossing our borders on a daily basis (gun fire just yesterday at the border) not properly vetting. Crime rising, government wanting to defund our police, if this law passes, the American citizens will be more likely attacked by predators.
I’m 72, I’m more afraid for my life, my wife’s life and my children life when the justice system return criminals back on the streets, our government wants to defund the police and no one is being accountable.
Robert • May 15, 2023 at 2:18 pm
The second amendment is to allow legal citizens to protect their home and family from criminals and the government.
It has been proven that one of the first moves from a government to minimize the rights and control of said government is to take away that right of protection.
We are in dangerous waters and we must protect those precious rights.
Orion54 • May 15, 2023 at 8:14 pm
they never seem to mention that Highland Park already had a ban in place when the shooting happened. the ban didn’t stop the criminal! never does, so it’s not about public safety
Robert • May 15, 2023 at 1:59 pm
I wish the term “assault” weapon/rifle would go away. Assault was the action they did, a rifle was what they used. Yes I know that an AR-15 (does not stand for assault rifle for the ignorant people), which is nothing more than a semi automatic rifle witch looks like military grade weapon that has the ability to add on upgrades like any other weapon, was the catalyst to start this law however do your research into gun related deaths and you’ll see more handguns are used than any rifle is.
Randy • May 16, 2023 at 7:55 am
Assault,, Yes I agree . Sniper rifle is the same . It’s a rifle until you put in the hands of the Sniper
Skyler • May 15, 2023 at 1:57 pm
Its does my heart good to see we still have patriots in this country