Illinois Defends Assault Weapon Ban at Supreme Court

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently requested more details from state regarding bans

Rifles are offered for sale at Freddie Bear Sports in Tinley Park, Ill., on April 8, 2021. Scott Olson/Getty Images

The state of Illinois has filed a brief with the Supreme Court defending its ban on assault weapons, insisting that such a ban does not violate Second Amendment rights.

The case revolves around an ordinance passed by the Naperville City Council in August last year that was set to come into effect Jan. 1. The ordinance bans the sale of assault weapons as well as large capacity magazines with 15 rounds in case of a handgun or 10 rounds for long guns. People who violate the ordinance would be subjected to penalties. In September, the National Association for Gun Rights, a gun store, and the owner of the gun store filed a complaint against the ordinance, claiming that the prohibition violated their Second Amendment rights.

In January, an amended complaint was filed, which added a claim that the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” signed into law in the state on Jan. 11 also violated the Second Amendment. The Act bans the sale and unauthorized possession of assault weapons.

A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit refused to block the law from getting enforced, following which, the National Association for Gun Rights approached the Supreme Court. An emergency application for injunction was filed by plaintiffs on April 28. On May 3, Illinois filed its response brief.

In its 44-page filing (pdf), the state of Illinois argued that the high court should not block the law from enforcement while a lawsuit is ongoing in lower courts, insisting that it is unclear whether a 2022 Supreme Court precedent upholding gun rights applies to the ban on assault weapons.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court judged in a 6–3 decision that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the rights of a law-abiding citizen to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. The judgment came as part of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen case and struck down New York’s concealed carry law.

The Bruen Criteria

The state of Illinois argues in the filing that the applicants have not shown that “it is indisputably clear that they will prevail under the two-step test developed in Bruen.”

The first step of the test places a burden on applicants to prove that assault weapons are “bearable arms” that are in “common use today for self-defense.” In the second step, the government must prove that its regulation to ban assault rifles is “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The filing points out that the Bruen judgment accepts that the rights guaranteed under Second Amendment “is not unlimited” and that such rights “extends only to certain types of weapons.” The Second Amendment only protects firearms that are “commonly used” for self-defense. As such, firearms that do not fit within such categories, like those used in military service, may be banned, it argued.

Assault weapons derive from military-grade weaponry which renders them “uniquely suitable as weapons of war but not commonly used or suitable for personal self-defense.”

“Assault weapons are designed to allow high-velocity rounds to be fired at ‘a high rate of delivery’ and ‘a high degree of accuracy at long range’. But these features are unnecessary in the civilian self-defense context, where ‘most confrontations involving gunfire are at close range’, and therefore do not require the long-distance accuracy of assault weapons.”

The filing went on to give examples where jurisdictions have banned certain advanced firearms in the past deemed to be a threat to public safety. For instance, in the 19th century, several states prohibited revolvers, pistols, and other concealable weapons, it said. Between 1925 and 1934, at least 32 states enacted anti-machine gun laws.

“By prohibiting the manufacture and sale of weapons and magazines increasingly used in the deadliest mass shootings, the Act (Protect Illinois Communities Act) comfortably fits within this pattern of regulation in response to new forms of violent crime perpetrated with technologically advanced weapons,” the filing said.

“The public safety justifications underlying the Act are nearly identical to those that prompted 18th, 19th, and 20th-century legislatures to regulate categories of weapons associated with an increase in homicides attributable to specific weapons and other criminal misuse.”

Financial Loss Argument, Ignoring Bruen Ruling

Applicants also claimed that the gun store and its owners will suffer from financial losses due to the prohibition of assault rifles. The filing pointed out that the gun store does not exclusively sell assault weapons but also firearms that are not covered by the Protect Illinois Communities Act.

The filing argued that the Protect Illinois Communities Act’s restrictions on assault weapons promote a “compelling interest in protecting the public and saving lives.”

In their emergency application (pdf) for injunction filed at the Supreme Court, plaintiffs argued that the lower courts are ignoring the Bruen ruling.

“Many of the lower courts did not get the message. This action is a case in point. In the teeth of this Court’s precedents, the district court refused to address the evidence that the arms banned by the challenged laws are held by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The district court did not dispute the evidence; it simply ignored it,” it said.

The case could pressure the Supreme Court to take a stance on the legality regarding laws that restrict the sale or possession of assault weapons.