The Illinois assault weapons ban will remain in effect as the Supreme Court has declined to intervene.

The Illinois assault weapons ban will remain in effect as the Supreme Court has declined to intervene.

The highest court in the United States, known as the Supreme Court, decided on Thursday not to stop an Illinois law that prohibits assault-style weapons. This means that the law will remain in effect while the case is being heard in a federal appeals court.

declined to hear a similar case

The ruling by the judges, with no recorded disagreements, is the second instance in which they have rejected hearing a comparable lawsuit.

rejected the request to stop the prohibition of Illinois across the entire state

The Second Amendment has been challenged by a gun rights group and a gun store owner, stating that a specific ordinance is in violation. Additionally, a similar regulation in Naperville, a suburb of Chicago, remains unchanged.

but the court’s decision was not based on the merits

The court recently denied a request from a pro-Second Amendment group, following a series of shootings. However, the court’s ruling was not made on the basis of the case’s validity.

at the campus of University of Nevada, Las Vegas and in Austin and San Antonio, Texas

The recent shootings have sparked President Biden’s repeated urging for Congress to implement a prohibition on assault weapons and magazines with high capacities.

2016 Supreme Court decision,

The Supreme Court’s ruling 18 months prior established a different method for assessing the legality of gun limitations. Consequently, following the 2016 decision by the Supreme Court,

The justices have established a set standard.

In order to align with the country’s established history of firearm regulation, several long-standing federal laws pertaining to guns are necessary.have been invalidated.

2013 appeal by the Pennsylvania State Department of Transportation challenging a $1.5 million fine.

In November, the high court considered an appeal from the Pennsylvania State Department of Transportation regarding a $1.5 million penalty.

Rewording: A challenge to a law that has been in place for 30 years.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling by the end of June regarding the restriction of individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. This presents an opportunity for the court to clarify their previous decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen from June 2022.

Robert Bevis, a gun shop owner, and the National Association for Gun Rights filed a case from Illinois, claiming that the state’s prohibition of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines violates the Constitution.

2022 mass shooting

During a parade in Highland Park celebrating Independence Day, a person with an AR-15 rifle and 30-round magazines allegedly fired 83 shots in under a minute, resulting in the deaths of seven individuals and injuries to 48 others, as stated in court documents filed by Illinois authorities.

The Illinois ban

The state of Illinois has implemented a regulation that limits the buying and selling of semi-automatic weapons commonly known as “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles. Additionally, the law also restricts the possession of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, which are defined as magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for handguns. Those who legally owned assault weapons prior to the law’s enactment may retain them, but must provide a sworn statement to the state police by January 1st.

The challenge against Illinois’ gun ban was filed by Bevis and the National Association for Gun Rights right after the law was put into effect. They requested a federal district court to prevent the law from being enforced. However, the district court denied the request in February and a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit also refused to halt the ban. A plea for the full 7th Circuit to review the case was rejected.

The 7th Circuit court ruled that “assault weapons and [large-capacity magazines] are more comparable to machineguns and military-grade weapons rather than the various firearms commonly used for personal self-defense.” However, the judges stated that the plaintiffs could present evidence that “demonstrates a clear difference between AR-15s and M16s,” as the latter are not protected by the Second Amendment according to previous Supreme Court decisions and can be prohibited.

Bevis and the National Association for Gun Rights filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking for urgent action, claiming that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms commonly used for lawful purposes violate the Second Amendment.

Bevis’s legal team claims that government officials are directly responsible for ruining his means of making a living by enforcing laws that are causing his gun store to shut down.

They claimed to the court in a document that the Seventh Circuit’s ruling was clearly incorrect. They also stated that in the meantime, both the plaintiffs and numerous law-abiding citizens in Illinois are enduring irreversible harm due to their basic right to own and carry weapons being violated.

However, attorneys representing the state argue that issuing an injunction at this point in the proceedings would be premature and harmful. They also pointed out that the majority of lower courts have rejected challenges to laws resembling the one in Illinois.

The government representatives also challenged Bevis’ concerns regarding the adverse effects of the legislation on his business, yet the gun store continues to operate.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Solicitor General Jane Elinor Notz stated in a document submitted to the justices that the gun store in question does not only specialize in selling assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, but also offers other types of firearms that are not restricted by current laws, as well as gunsmithing and firearms training services.

Melissa Quinn