Supreme Court Allows Illinois Assault Weapons Ban To Take Effect

Since there are frequent debates over gun regulations here at PF, in which some participants like playing the part of Court Justice, with their stark proclamations over what isn't Constitutional, my main intent with this thread is educational. Apparently, Constitutionality of banning certain guns, is not so cut and dried, as many would have us believe.

The state of Illinois passed a ban on the sale of "assault weapons," which was challenged by the owner of a gunshop, along with the National Foundation of Gun Rights (NFGR). An injunction of the law was originally issued by a Trump-appointed judge, but later overturned by an Appeals Court judge. The SCOTUS obviously does not feel that the answer here is so patently obvious, that they are ready to clarify it, with ruling from on High, before it has worked it's way through lower court rulings. Nor are they presumptively preventing it from going into effect. The Court did not comment on their refusal to issue an injunction; no dissenting Justices were noted.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-illinois-assault-weapons-ban-take-effect.amp

<Snip>
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed Illinois' ban on "assault weapons" to take effect temporarily on Wednesday.

The ruling allows the Illinois law to remain in effect while lower courts deliberate on its constitutional status...

The Illinois law bans the sale and new possession of semi-automatic "assault weapons." Those who already legally own such weapons would not have to turn them in. The law also bans the sale of large capacity magazines...

Clearly, the Supreme Court is watching the issue closely and we look forward to appealing very soon on the merits if the 7th Circuit rules against us – as the signs currently point to," said Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the NFGR.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is currently considering the case. The request for an injunction went to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Illinois passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act on Jan. 10, banning the sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery and importation of "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines, with exceptions for law enforcement, military members and certain other professionals with firearm training. The legislation specifically names the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles and requires lawful owners of semi-automatic rifles to register their ownership with state police.

Judge Stephen Patrick McGlynn, a Trump appointee in Illinois' Southern District, had initially granted the injunction earlier in May. Appellate Judge Frank Easterbrook then reversed McGlynn's ruling, a decision that has now been supported by both the 7th Circuit and the Supreme Court.
<End Snip>


I have a second source

<Snip>
The Supreme Court in January declined to block new New York gun restrictions. The two decisions taken together indicate the justices are willing to give lower courts time to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling last summer that dramatically expanded gun rights under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
<End Snip>

This source (NBC) gave the Illinois definitions for "high capacity magazines," which is more the 10 round magazines for a long gun, or more than 15 rounds, for a handgun.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna83326

 

[Background music: The Sidestep, from The Best Little Whore House in Texas.]

Both the Supreme Court, in this instance, and the Republican Party on the bill in the House of Representatives calling for a vote on Congressman George Santos, demonstrated their ability to dance to the above song.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Cool should we expect to see gun violence in Illinois significantly decrease? Or are we fixing the car by turning up the radio, drowning out the grinding noise that still persist?

 

I think the law is clearly unconstitutional and reflects an emotional knee jerk reaction of the legislature.

I appreciate the informative post.

 

Won't make much of a difference considering how many guns are moved into Illinois from surrounding states with laxer laws.

 

SCOTUS made that decision because of the procedural posture of the case ffs.

It would be an interlocutory appeal when the 7th circuit is still working through its own decision. They as a rule don't take those cases.

^ A very well known and heeled attorney explains

 

It's an emergency petition to place an injunction on the new law. This is not a win per se because the law is still going through the court system and will probably end up in the Supreme Court in the next session or the following session. But for the past year, the justices are not granting emergency injunctions while the bill goes through the court. The irony here, Associate Justice Barret issued the order simply stating that the relief was denied with no explanation. This is a conservative judge appointed by Trump.

 

Can you please educate us on the difference between an "Assault weapon" and a Ranch Rifle?

 

100% won't help with their felons that participate in gang violence in the morning, during lunch and at night without fear of prosecution.

 

That would be against the law.

 

They are, obviously, not the ones that this law is meant to deter. If you have not noticed, there are a not insignificant number of innocent, gun violence victims, of shooters who are not gang members-- do those not count?

 

I agree with the supreme court here- this issue doesn't warrant an immediate hearing. It can wait a few months to be shot down on a more schedule.

 

That may be what happens; we will have to wait to see. My real point, which seems to have been lost on many, was that if this was so obviously, blatantly, unconstitutional, then one would expect that the SCOTUS would block the law from taking effect, until after it was deemed to be so, by the Appeals Court. However, according to the gun rights litigant, quoted in the article, it is looking as if the Appeals Court is going to let this law stand. So then, regardless of how the current Supreme Court ultimately adjudicates the matter, it is obviously not as clear cut of a question, as some here, portray it to be.

 

Or the SC knows the thrashing they'll take in the media for protecting this particular civil right, and hope to somewhat reduce the hysteria by not unnecessarily expiditing action. Do I understand correctly theres still opportunity for lower courts to decide anyway?

 

I thought all of that had been in my OP(?).

Well in the first reply, @Torus34 seemed, to me, to possibly be implying that the Court has had enough controversy, for the moment. The most recent public opinion poll, sees confidence in the Court to be its lowest in at least the last 50 years-- down at Congress approval levels! This is an incredibly steep decline, in only a few years' time.

<Google Snip>
Only 17 percent of respondents said they had a great deal of confidence in the high court in 2022, down from 26 percent the year before, according to the General Social Survey, run by NORC at the University of Chicago.1 day ago
https://thehill.com › court-battles
<End>

While I like to try to use more middle ground or right leaning sites for things like this, just to have more credibility for our friends on the Right, I think the Hill may be misstating the number, here. I had heard 18%, which is what the L.A. Times, also, quotes:

<Snip>
In the 2022 survey, just 18% of Americans said they had a great deal of confidence in the court, down from 26% in 2021, and 36% said they had hardly any, up from 21%. An additional 46% in the recent survey said they had “only some” confidence.
<End Snip>

The odd thing is that this is a new article, but it says it was a 2022 survey. Does that mean that it doesn't represent the current view? (God, it would be so nice, if someone could clearly report news).

https://www.latimes.com/world-natio...n-50-years-after-abortion-decision-poll-shows

 

Harder to be violent without guns.

ya don't say. weird how people who have no problem breaking laws in state, would have no problem breaking the law crossing a state line.

 

Yes, but regardless, it is a given that whichever side loses, will appeal to the Supreme Court, and it would be outrageous, if that were the state of Illinois, for the Court to refuse to hear the case. No matter, if you look back at the OP, you'll see that a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Gun Rights, expects the Appeals Court to rule to affirm the law, so the SCOTUS is only buying itself a short reprieve:

 

There will still be weekly bloodbaths in Chicago. This law will not reduce the murder rate by any significant number as those gang bangers use pistols mostly. I believe it is unconstitutional and the USSC will eventually render the same ruling.

 

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me its not really in the SC's jurisdiction anyway until after the lower courts make their rulings (regardless of how 'expected' those rulings are). Granted, an injuction isn't a ruling, but I don't see that an injunction is necessary here.

 

No, still able to be criminals, they just have to buy a handgun with 15 rounds or less.... and a couple extra magazines.

 

Bloodbaths? I guess. I mean, it's not even top 5 most violent cities in the US. Though, I'm not sure how the surrounding areas work when talking about Chicago. Rockford is the first Illinois city in teh top most violent crimes per capita in the US. Chicago itself doesn't seem to even make the top 50 list.

That said, I will agree that one ruling like this isn't going to make that much of a difference. The US in general is too far gone when it comes to guns.

*shrug* Can't win a race with one step.

 

As to your assertion that this would not impact the majority of shootings, which is a staple, among the replies to any gun regulation, to which others in this thread, also attest--

-- gun violence cannot be solved with any one, silver bullet (if you'll forgive the pun). This law was passed in response to that other sort of incident, which gets so much more publicity, than the run of the mill type shootings: a mass shooting, at a 4th of July parade. It is those types of events, which this law intends, primarily, to address. Hard for me to understand why some of you find it hard to understand that people might see any reduction in senseless gun deaths, as still, an improvement over the status quo, even if it is not a panacea for the problem of gun violence.


<Snip>
In Illinois, Democrats looked to pass new gun control measures following a mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Ill., which killed seven people while wounding dozens of others.
<End>

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...es-illinois-assault-weapons-ban-in-place/amp/

 

The request obviously could not be made, for the SCOTUS to hear the case, while it was still in Appeals Court. The request (from the gun advocates' side, of course) was for a stay, an injunction, at least temporarily blocking the law from taking effect, before being resolved in the courts. The Supreme Court certainly has the power to do this, and there is no reason to believe that they would be hesitant to do so, if they saw the law being questioned, as a highly dubious one.

 

As stated: An interlocutory appeal. Scotus generally doesn't do interlocutory appeals, as a rule. Again: This is all clearly explained in the video.

 

Yeah, statistics don’t really tell the whole story do they? Like the fact more people are killed by hands and feet than by all types of rifles combined. So is the AR-15 more dangerous, or are hands and feet? I’m more likely to be beaten to death than killed by any kind of rifle, so yeah… statistics again.