The case, Barnett v. Raoul, was filed on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation and multiple individual plaintiffs. It followed the state’s obvious overreach in enacting the sweeping ban.
Illinois and a handful of other states controlled by anti-gun forces reacted to the high court’s landmark Bruen decision by moving sharply in the opposite direction. Instead of following the law of the land — not to mention the Constitution — the Land of Lincoln instead reacted by imposing even more restrictions on gun rights.
The so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act banned the sale and manufacture of semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47. Long gun magazines that may hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and handgun magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds were also expressly banned.
The prohibition extended to .50 caliber firearms and ammunition.
That move was immediately challenged.
A preliminary injunction was quickly granted, halting the law from taking effect. That reprieve, however, was only temporary.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that lower court order on the shaky grounds that these popular sporting rifles do not constitute “arms” as covered by the Second Amendment.
This week’s petition before the Supreme Court noted the restrictive firearm laws enacted by Illinois run directly counter to the clear mandate of the court in the Bruen case. It further recalled the Seventh Circuit’s ruling that relied on case law predating Bruen, another action contrary to the intent of the highest court in the land.
The petition lamented that justices now face the task of firmly reminding lower courts of the direction given by Bruen less than two years ago. And courts, according to the plaintiffs, “are not free to pick and choose among fundamental rights or Supreme Court precedents.”
