Supreme Court, responding to Naperville gun shop owner's request, lets state ban continue

SPRINGFIELD - Illinois' ban on some high-powered weapons and large-capacity magazines will remain in force, at least for the time being.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant a temporary injunction requested by a Naperville gun shop owner to block enforcement of the law, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act, pending an appeal of five consolidated lower court decisions at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 26, the National Association for Gun Rights, in conjunction with Robert Bevis, the owner of Law Weapons and Supply, filed an application for an injunction with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who hears emergency requests from the 7th Circuit. According to a notation on the court's website, Barrett referred the application to the full court, which declined to issue the injunction.

The court did not issue an opinion giving its reasons for the denial. It would have taken votes from five justices to grant the injunction. Once the full court has acted on an application, the application is considered closed and there is no opportunity to seek action again.

State Rep. Bob Morgan, a Deerfield Democrat, who was the law's chief sponsor in the House, issued a statement praising the court's decision.

"The Protect Illinois Communities Act has already prevented the sale of thousands of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in our state," he said. "This ruling is a victory in the fight to keep these weapons of war from creating more carnage in communities like mine and countless others across this state."

The National Association for Gun Rights and Bevis are plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging both the state weapons ban and Naperville's own ban enacted by the city of Naperville in August 2022. Both laws were enacted in response to a mass shooting at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park that left seven people dead and scores more injured or traumatized.

The state law, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Jan. 10, prohibits the manufacture, sale and possession of more than 190 types of firearms that it classifies as "assault weapons," as well as many grips, stocks and attachments. It also bans large-capacity magazines. Naperville's ordinance is similar.

On Feb. 17, U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall declined to block the laws while the case was being heard. In a 33-page opinion, she said the plaintiffs failed to meet the high legal standard for a preliminary injunction.

That standard requires someone to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, that they will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the "balance of equities" tips in their favor and that an injunction is in the public interest.

On the "balance of equities" test in particular, Kendall said the plaintiffs stand to suffer only "minimal" harms from the ban on the sale and possession of certain weapons. She also said the state and city "compellingly" argued that their laws protect public safety by removing particularly dangerous weapons from circulation.

The gun rights association appealed that decision to the 7th Circuit, which also declined to issue an injunction. Wednesday's decision from the U.S. Supreme Court upholds both denials.

The request had argued that Bevis' business has suffered because of the ban and might end up closing if it can't sell the popular guns. It also argued against the merits of the ban on Second Amendment grounds, and that the bans did not meet Supreme Court precedent.

"An arm cannot be subjected to a categorical ban unless it is both dangerous and unusual," they told the Supreme Court, noting that at least 20 million AR-15s and similar weapons are owned by millions of Americans. "An arm that is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes is, by definition, not unusual."

Most district courts have said such bans on sales are constitutional, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul told the Supreme Court, and no appeals court or state high court has ruled on the issue. "At the very least, further percolation is warranted" before the justices get involved, he wrote.

Lawyers for Naperville argued that the request from Bevis was not an emergency, The Washington Post reported. "The loss of business from being unable to sell one category of one possible product line at a gun store simply cannot carry sufficient weight against the danger of a murdered or permanently maimed Naperville resident, senselessly shot by an assault rifle," the city said in its brief.

The Gun Violence Prevention PAC, or G-PAC, issued a statement praising the decision and the state's lawyers.

"Stopping enforcement of the law would allow resumption of a continuing flow of new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines into our communities," G-Pac said in a statement. "Sale of those dangerous weapons has now stopped and it should never be resumed."

In a separate case in the Southern District of Illinois, Judge Stephen P. McGlynn granted a request for a preliminary injunction on April 28. That ruling involved three consolidated cases, including one filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association.

That order was quickly put on hold by the 7th Circuit, which is now scheduled to hear a consolidated appeal in five federal cases challenging the law - the three from the Southern District, the gun rights association and Naperville shop owner's case from the Northern District, and one other Northern District case challenging local weapons bans in Chicago and Cook County.

Oral arguments in that appeal are scheduled for June 29.