The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a series of challenges to Illinois’ ban on assault weapons, leaving the controversial law in place for now but indicating potential future involvement, WTTW and The Center Square are reporting. The decision comes after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban last November, stating that “even the most important personal freedoms have their limits.”
In a Tuesday order, the high court denied petitions for writs of certiorari in six cases challenging the ban. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, expressing a willingness to take up the issue once the cases reach final judgment. Justice Thomas wrote, “if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can — and should — review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”
The Illinois ban, part of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, was enacted in response to the tragic mass shooting at a Highland Park July 4 parade in 2022, where a gunman using an AR-15-style rifle killed seven people. The law prohibits the purchase and sale of firearms and accessories classified as assault weapons and imposes limits on magazine capacities for both handguns and long guns. Existing owners of these firearms were required to register them with the Illinois State Police by the end of 2023.
Justice Thomas criticized the Seventh Circuit’s decision, calling it “nonsensical” and arguing that common semiautomatic firearms like the AR-15 are protected under the Second Amendment. He cited his dissent in a similar 2015 case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, to support his position.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases leaves unresolved a significant legal question about the extent of Second Amendment protections. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling found that the guns and high-capacity magazines regulated under the Protecting Illinois Communities Act “lie on the military side of that line and thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment.”
Justice Thomas responded, “In my view, Illinois’ ban is ‘highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes,’” adding that it is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
While this decision denies immediate relief to the challengers, it sets the stage for a potential future Supreme Court review. The focus now shifts to the Southern District of Illinois federal court, where four consolidated gun ban challenges are expected to move forward with a bench trial scheduled for September 16 in East St. Louis.
What happens when the drumbeat for Protecting The Second Amendment is everything but History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.
To the zipped lipped Gun talking blowbags on this forum…Take a bow, you own Gun Control History illiterate azzhats like these…
Take your meds schizo.
Start by evaluating your skills, hobbies, and interests. Determine what you’re passionate about or what skills you possess that can be monetized.
HEREཽ҉҉҉҉ →꙲꙲→→ � https://shorturl.at/ZbpAR
Reading comprehension fail or ignorance of legal proceedings you be the judge.
Ignorance. period.
……………yeah guess that was basically the same issue.
Final judgment final judgment final judgment. Until we get an appealable final judgment, these cases will continue to fester and liberal state legislators will continue to cross the line in their supposed Bruen analysis, because the Supreme Court will not intercede in a case, but only after a final judgment is reached.
There are a few cases in which a final decision of a court of appeals is pending–but those courts know full well that a final judgment enforcing those bans will be immediately appealed to SCOTUS and likely reversed. The delays assure the laws w2ill remain in effect for as long as possible.
Yeah we just had Antonyuk v. James go back for consideration re Rahimi so feeling that delay of final decision game. The commie oriented courts will play games as long as they can so hopefully the American ones will keep the cases moving to paint us into a corner.
“Yeah we just had Antonyuk v. James go back for consideration re Rahimi…”
Seems that in “Rahimi” the USSC found a way around its own “Bruen” ruling.
For delay purposes absolutely, for material relevance in the outcome of the case likely not. With that said if the delay is paired well with vote rigging and court appointments then it could be exactly what you say
“…if the delay is paired well with vote rigging and court appointments then it could be exactly what you say.”
If I understand “Bruen” correctly (it could happen), government must demonstrate historical proof of a 2A restriction, or analog, relating to the charge at hand. “Rahimi” seems to “clarify” “Bruen” by use of “sort of” historical restriction.
Given enough numbers of “sort of” related to history, then government meets its burden. My suspicion is that even racist gun control laws, or “Old West” prohibitions on guns within towns/cities, 2A violations or not, will serve to cross the hurdle of “Bruen”, allowing unconstitutional historical laws to serve as legitimate historical analog.
The old west stuff would work in territories of the US assuming the judges were honest as such restrictions evaporated when statehood became the status until later laws were applied (and mostly repealed) and naturally every sort of will be applied wherever it can. So really it’s grab everything we can while we can and keep pushing until we get stopped…..or exactly what the other side has been doing for a century while we largely let it happen. If we actually stay in the fight I don’t see a return to the level of restrictions we had in the 90’s and may continue to see advancement well past you and I being buried. I fully expect every effort of government, media, and academia (super repetitious I know) to gaslight everyone they can into accepting restrictions as they did in the past but I wonder if it will be as successful with more competition in information.
Here in California, the President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Chuck Michel, has accurately called these laws intended to circumvent SCOTUS decisions as ‘the Blue Resistance.” Chuck is one of the pre-eminent 2A lawyers in the country, and he nailed this. The left NEVER gives up, and they NEVER stop lying. Today, the CRPA and several other firearms organizations is filing yet another law suit against CA for their new 11% excise tax on firearms, component parts, and ammo. To keep up to date and find out what YOU can do to help, go to CRPA.org!
They are not taking it up now. They will have to take it up later because it’s a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment that they’ve already ruled on regarding AR-15s in the 2015 case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park confirming that an AR-15 is a common civilian rifle and not an assault weapon. Continuing to classify it as such is unconstitutional yet it still goes on apparently in many states.
The Supreme Court never “has” to take up a case. A grant of review (called certiorari) is entirely discretionary. That doesn’t mean they will not–Thomas has said as much.
We got 2 big decisions this term, they granted cert. in frames and receivers and pistol braces last term to be heard next term, they clearly are interested in the 2A, I’m sure they will get to semi-autos and mag bans sooner rather than later… 😉
Sure Geoff. Not holding my breath. Absolved Trump(&Joe) rather than literally millions of semi-automatic rifle owner’s. Hopefully making it to Indiana soon🙄
Sooner or later? How much later? They’re dragging this out so long that it makes the 2A a nullity.
As they say: Justice delayed is justice denied.
You would have been happier if Scalia and RBG was replaced by ‘Wise Latina’ 2 and Kagan 2?
Are you stoned?
The decision comes after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban last November, stating that “even the most important personal freedoms have their limits.”
Really? What does “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” mean to you?
Actually, the Seventh upheld a denial of a temporary injunction. I’d have to check, but I don’t think that the case has been tried yet, after which (regardless whi wins) the case will return to the Seventh.Or to put it another way, this case has several years to go before it is “ripe” for Supreme Court review.
“What does “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” mean to you?“
The second amendment to the constitution is not a buffet table, you can’t just cherry pick words or phrases and claim they constitute the whole of the amendment.
Every word and phrase in the second amendment is given context and meaning by the preamble:
‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free state… ‘
Everything that follows that preamble is within the context of ‘a well regulated militia’.
In fascist land rights are not for individuals. In spite of your best efforts we are not a fascist country.
Rights are for individuals.
This whole “militia” is the purpose has been thoroughly debunked. Time and again, some clown that has never read supporting documents or has a grasp on context, regurgitates this nonsense like a bad carnival hotdog.
Since the “militia” argument has been proven to be a fascist fantasy, we will just move along.
Clarence Thomas is the greatest American.
Veterans who think Clarence Thomas is a great American hero should remember he spent his first three years as a lawyer at Monsanto chemical, opposing bans on Agent Orange while Vietnam veterans were suffering from cancer and other toxic affects of the herbicide sprayed during the Vietnam war.
If you know a Vietnam veteran with cancer, you can thank Clarence Thomas for his efforts to defend Monsanto’s toxic legacy.
Agent Orange is similar to Round-Up and only dangerous when misused by the applicator. US Army failed to properly train & protect troops, not Monsanto’s fault.
“… even the most important personal freedoms have their limits.” — Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
So, if I want to distribute flyers critical of state government and my copy machine generates those flyers “too fast” for state government’s liking, state government can ban copy machines which are “too fast”???
Or, if I want to distribute videos to the Internet which are critical of state government and my Internet access enables me to distribute those videos “too fast” for state government’s liking, state government can ban Internet access which is “too fast”???
After all, a large number of flyers or videos which are critical of state government and distributed too quickly for state government to quash–that could generate a huge uproar and even rioting leading to many deaths. Better to limit our First Amendment right to Free Speech and muzzle us ahead of time–just in case some unhinged loudmouth would otherwise cause rioting and death.
A U.S. Supreme Court Justice famously stated that the cure for “bad” speech is MORE speech, not banning or limiting speech.
Somehow it fails to register with many bureaucrats, politicians, and voters that the same principle applies to bad firearm use: the cure for bad firearm use is MORE firearm use (in the hands of good people of course).
Like it or not, there are nasty people in the world who will attempt to harm innocent people–using any object they can in that endeavor. Sometimes those nasty people will even use a firearm to harm innocents. The fastest and surest way to stop a nasty person with a firearm: victims who also have firearms themselves for righteous self-defense.
Didn’t we just have the Biden admin win a 1st amendment case (dismissed due to lack of standing) related to government encouraged propaganda and silencing of critics in mass and social media?
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
SCOTUS Miller decision – 1939
“…The Seventh Circuit’s ruling found that the guns and high-capacity magazines regulated under the Protecting Illinois Communities Act “lie on the military side of that line and thus are not within the class of Arms protected by the Second Amendment.”
Seventh Circuit – 2024
So, the 2nd Amendment only applies to weapons that are ordinary military equipment or that contribute to the common defense…No, wait! The 2nd Amendment only applies to hunting weapons and not weapons that lie “on the military side of that line.”
SCOTUS can see the conflict in these rulings yet they refuse to resolve the issue. Why?
One can only conclude that the majority of Justices think it’s A-OK to restrain the rights of every law abiding gun owner as if they were pre-criminals; they limit our rights because of the actions of the actual criminals.
Like all elitists, the Justices are uncomfortable with ordinary citizens having the sort of power the Founders believed we should have.
So assualt rifles lye on the military side of the Constitutions 2A and they can prohibit them.
Did I read that right?
the 7th is doing us a weird favor taking this position it is the diametric opposite of us vs miller, the bedrock case of the NFA. Miller’s guilt was upheld due to his shotgun not being suitable for military use. This puts the NFA in peril as well although the nfa it’s self is contradictory via having features on military weapons being regulated by a verdict that says they’re not.
Simple dodge, and Thomas may not be around for taking it up at a later date, probably whats being counting on.
I’m not too worried about Biden winning when Ketanji Jackson Brown and the other Marxist bimbos appointed by Obama and FJB are voting the same way as those appointed by Trump. Same votes on the RKBA.. Why worry who wins in November? It’s a shit sandwich either way