In response to a lawsuit filed by gun rights advocates against a recently enacted ban on specific rifles, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett intervened and requested a response from an Illinois municipality.
Last year, a local ordinance was enacted in Naperville, Illinois, that was similar to a state law passed this year in Illinois that prohibited the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines.
Barrett, who is in charge of appeals for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, stated that the Naperville officials have until May 8 at noon to respond.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in NYSRPA v. Bruen that gun regulations must be consistent with the language and history of the Constitution, and the National Association for Gun Rights and the National Foundation for Gun Rights asserted that this statute is not.
Dudley Brown, President of NAGR, told the Washington Examiner, “We’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously. Any ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ is plainly unconstitutional, and now it is on the city of Naperville to explain the legal justification for their ban. Of course, there isn’t any. The bans were ludicrous from the start, and if Illinois had any sense, they would wave the white flag now and save us all some time.”
“This is an exceedingly simple case. The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home,” the plaintiffs wrote in their emergency application.
“The arms banned by Respondents are possessed by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. Under this Court’s precedents, ‘that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons’” the plaintiffs continued. “There cannot be the slightest question, therefore, that the challenged laws are unconstitutional.”
“The challenged laws are unconstitutional because ‘[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.’ Plaintiffs desire to keep and bear for lawful purposes (including defense of their homes) the semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines banned by the challenged laws,” they added.
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
Here’s another crucial question in the landmark case Bevis v. Naperville and the State of Illinois, as described by renowned legal expert Jonathan Turley: CONTINUE READING…