US Supreme Court denies request to block Illinois and Naperville gun bans

For Chicago Tribune

May 17, 2023

SPRINGFIELD — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a request from a Naperville gun store owner to block a city ordinance and an Illinois law banning the sale of certain high-powered firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees emergency requests from Illinois and neighboring states, referred the request from gun shop owner Robert Bevis to the full court, which denied it in an unsigned order.

The Naperville City Council approved a local ban on the sale of certain high-powered firearms a month after the deadly mass shooting at last year’s Fourth of July parade in Highland Park. The state followed suit in January with a law that immediately banned the sale of certain semi-automatic guns as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines statewide.

The state law is being challenged in both state and federal court. Wednesday’s high court ruling indicates the ban will remain in effect while those challenges play out.

Bevis, owner of Law Weapons & Supply, and the National Association for Gun Rights are challenging both the Naperville ordinance and the state law in their federal lawsuit, arguing the gun bans violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to intervene in late April after both the U.S. District Court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue injunctions while the case is being adjudicated.

In its subsequent filing to the Supreme Court, the state argued that Bevis and the gun group have failed to show that they are likely to succeed in overturning the laws or to prove that it would be appropriate for the high court to step in this early in the proceedings.

“They principally argue that the district court erred in denying a preliminary injunction … but this Court is not a court of error correction,” Democratic Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office wrote in its response.

Bevis and the gun rights group also failed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if the law were to remain in place, which might justify an emergency response from the Supreme Court, Raoul’s office argued.

They “have not shown that their inability to purchase or sell a narrow category of firearms — assault weapons and (large-capacity magazines) — will irreparably harm them,” the state said in its response. “By contrast, the Act’s restrictions on assault weapons and (large-capacity magazines) promote a compelling interest in protecting the public and saving lives.”

In a separate 23-page response, lawyers for the city of Naperville argued that just because those challenging the laws “assert that this presents an issue of constitutional import is not a reason for sidestepping the ordinary appellate process.”

If the Supreme Court granted the request, “it would suggest that emergency relief is the rule, not the exception,” the Naperville lawyers argued.

In their request for emergency relief, Bevis and the gun rights group argued that there “cannot be the slightest question … that the challenged laws are unconstitutional” because they place restrictions on the sale and possession of weapons that “are possessed by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.”

In addition, they said the laws fail to meet the guidelines for permissible restrictions laid out in recent Supreme Court rulings in gun control cases, including a decision last summer in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York state’s concealed carry law.

The 7th Circuit earlier this month placed on hold a ruling from a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois that had temporarily blocked enforcement of the state ban.

The 7th Circuit appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments next month on the Bevis case and other pending legal challenges to the state gun ban.

On Tuesday, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit led by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, of Decatur, contending that the state ban violates the equal protection and special legislation clauses of the state constitution.

An attorney representing Caulkins and other plaintiffs in the case, Jerry Stocks, argued at Tuesday’s hearing that the ban also violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution while Raoul’s office, which is defending the ban, contended that the Second Amendment is not at issue in the state Supreme Court case.

“I think the purpose of those arguments was to kind of get everybody to agree that the Second Amendment applies to everyone,” Caulkins said after the hearing.

Separately, the Illinois Senate Executive Committee in an 8-3 vote Wednesday passed a measure that would allow anyone in the firearms industry to be sued for reasons that include failing to take steps to prevent illegal sales such as straw purchases, or marketing guns for unlawful paramilitary use.

Opponents argue the legislation violates federal law, which provides protections for firearms manufacturers against civil liabilities.

The bill, which passed 71-40 earlier this month in the House, will now go to the full Senate for a vote.