Supreme Court Denies Request to Block Illinois Gun Ban While Lower Courts Hear Challenges
The law penalizes civilians who “carries or possesses… manufactures, sells, delivers, imports, or purchases any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.”
The Supreme Court refused to block Illinois’s overreaching gun ban law, meaning the case will stay in the lower courts.
The law penalizes civilians who “carries or possesses… manufactures, sells, delivers, imports, or purchases any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle.” It also contains penalties for people who “sells, manufactures, delivers, imports, possesses, or purchases any assault weapon attachment or .50 caliber cartridge.”
The National Association for Gun Rights asked SCOTUS for a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo.
The group has to show people would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction before they appeal the Seventh Circuit’s ruling to SCOTUS. From The Chicago Tribune:
It was at least the second court setback this week for opponents of the ban on high-powered guns and high-capacity magazines. On Monday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago denied a request from the National Association for Gun Rights and a Naperville gun dealer for a review by the full court of November’s ruling by a three-judge panel that kept the gun ban in place.
The Supreme Court in May declined a request by the plaintiffs to block the state and local gun bans until the 7th Circuit appellate case was adjudicated.
Legal challenges to the ban are not over. The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday merely denied the gun rights advocates’ request for a temporary halt on the ban from being enforced until they take a full appeal of the 7th Circuit’s ruling to the high court.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker continues to defend the ban because “as everybody that voted on the law and voted for it, that this is not only a legal undertaking, an appropriate undertaking to keep and safeguard the people of the state of Illinois, but a constitutional one too.”
Can someone explain to these people that even if you vote on something, it doesn’t make it constitutional? (Rhetorical question because they know this.)
The law goes into effect on January 1.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And while you are at it, can somebody explain the characteristics that make a gun high-powered?
The use of “high-powered gun,” in the quoted article, implies the existence of a low-powered gun, and I’ve never heard these mentioned.
Can someone explain what is a low-powered gun?
(Insert mandatory internet rhetorical question disclaimer here)
BB Guns?
Airsoft?
Deadly on small insects…. too dangerous….
Maybe “mostly high-powered” to go along with Schumers “fully semi-automatic” firearms.
What’s in a name? The Browning P-38 semi-automatic 9 mm handgun carries the name “Browning High Power”.
Once up0on a time the competition definition of “high power” could be described by the cartridge, such as military main battle rifles in 30-06, 308, 8 mm and such but the inclusion of the mouse gun (AR-15) has lowered the bar. “High capacity” magazine is just standard capacity outside of politics.
I guess the lowly .177 Daisy BB gun and 22 short, long and long rifle cartridges are “low power” but only if single shot and bolt… as a magazine elevates them to assault weapon status (Oregon).
“Can someone explain what is a low-powered gun?”
Any firearm that cannot be used to hunt any game bigger than a varmint. For example: any AR15 chambered in NATO 5.56 or .223. It is too low powered to be able to (legally) hunt anything larger than a rabbit.
And for those unfamiliar with firearms, the vast majority of scary “assault weapons” are of these calibers. Politicians are banning low-powered guns because they’re scared of them.
No. A 223 is a high power rifle.
High Power is a NRA term that was put into use over 100yrs ago for match use. It is generally used to describe any centerfire rifle and all current Service (military) rifles. Low power would be your rimfires like 22lr.
The Bug-A_Salt
We keep one in our cabin in Vermont.
Browning HP35, a single action 9mm sidearm with a 13 round magazine (hence the High Power name). The P38 is a German double action sidearm with a (I think) 8 round magazine (developed by Walther).
I stand corrected …. duh… I actually know that but caught up in the moment. 1935 was also a vintage year for the S&W Model 27 with its N frame. The Browning was the first Wonder Nine.
That would be Red Ryder six-shooter cap guns.
Today with orange tips on the muzzles and warning labels that could only come from California.
Responsible for putting out many an eye. Just ask Ralphie.
While we are at it, the Founding Fathers never envisioned High Speed Automatic Printing Presses shooting out hundreds of pages per minute.
Perhaps it’s time for some common sense restrictions on the 1st Amendment.
Al Gore is right on it – he wants all information to come from mainstream news.
Because alternative news sources are just too DANGEROUS, ya know.
Way ahead of ya, dude. Democrats are on the job!
How about common-sense restrictions on the 4th and 5th amendments? Think of all the crime that could be prevented, and all the criminals who could be taken off the street, if only the 4th and 5th were not enforced quite so zealously as they are.
No weapon is an assault weapon … it’s an inanimate object incapable of carrying out an assault. What we have is an assault person.
The word weapon is so generic. If I assault someone with an umbrella, is it an assault umbrella? Umbrellas with telescoping shafts must be banned because of their concealment and reach!
I sure would like to see more articulate Republicans mock the Dems terminology to point out their silliness.
Disappointed that SCOTUS isn’t immediately swatting down these blatantly unconstitutional gun laws in the wake of Bruen.
Surprised they didn’t give illinois the middle digit and tell them to GFY while declaring the law completely unconstitutional.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/12/nearly_9_million_dollar_gun_buyback_program_yields_zero_purchased_firearms.html
The Trudeau Liberals spent nearly $9 million on its gun ‘buyback’ scheme this year without purchasing a single firearm, says the Department of Public Safety.
Cabinet in an Inquiry Of Ministry told the House of Commons it spent $8,964,109 of the $37.4 million allocated to the program before they paused it on October 12.
Now when governments run gun “buyback” initiatives, “buyback” always goes in air quotes because it implies the government is buying something “back” as if it first owned the item—of course, this is not the case. The government is simply using money it plundered under threat of jail or state execution at the hands of a tax revenue “service” to bribe individuals into surrendering their right to self-defense for a couple of measly bucks. Stealing our money to weaponize it against us? What an utter racket.
SCOTUS couldn’t swat this law down, because it wasn’t before it. The only question before it was whether to grant an injunction while the case is being heard below. I would have thought an injunction was appropriate because the harm to those who will now be unable to exercise their constitutional rights, but I guess a majority of the court felt that this harm could be compensated later, if the plaintiffs prevail. It’s unlikely that anyone will die in the meantime because they were unable to defend themselves with the most suitable weapon for the job; in most cases a less suitable weapon will also work. Until it doesn’t.
Despite the blaring and misleading headlines this ruling by SCOTUS says nothing about the law. SCOTUS just wants it to go through the normal appeal process before they decide to take it or not.
Yes, but in the meantime, if the injunction were granted and then the state prevailed, what irreparable harm would it have suffered by delaying implementation and keeping the status quo ante a little longer? It seems to me that now, with the law due to go into effect until it’s struck down, anyone who wants one of the banned weapons to defend himself will have suffered irreparable harm. Especially if he’s dead, but even if not. Generally loss of a constitutional right is recognized as harm per se.