(The Center Square) – The state of Illinois and the city of Naperville have until Wednesday to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court as to why a preliminary injunction against the state’s gun and magazine ban shouldn’t be issued.
Months before lawsuits were filed against the state’s gun ban that was enacted on Jan. 10 of this year, Robert Bevis of Law Weapons out of Naperville sued the city over its gun ban in the fall of 2022. He amended his complaint to include Illinois’ after the state enacted its ban.
After the federal appeals court sided with the gun bans, Bevis was successful in getting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to docket his challenge Thursday.
“It’s just so egregious,” Bevis told The Center Square. “You go through it and they are literally slapping the Supreme Court right in the face.”
The defendants have until Dec. 6 to respond. Bevis is hopeful for a preliminary injunction as his business is struggling.
“Right now we are really living on life support, pretty much, and we need some relief so that we can at least try and rebuild,” Bevis said.
Robert Bevis of Law Weapons in Naperville, Illinois
Greg Bishop / The Center Square
The motion for a preliminary injunction in front of the U.S. Supreme Court lays out why plaintiffs feel two of the three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals got it wrong in siding with the gun bans.
Plaintiffs said the majority of the three-judge panel incorrectly held that banned firearms are not arms, that the common use test is faulty, that the court misinterpreted recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, that the court’s decision “rests on stealth interest balancing,” and that an arm may be banned “because it is similar to a weapon formerly used by the military.”
“In summary, the Seventh Circuit’s decision was manifestly erroneous. In the meantime, Plaintiffs and hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Illinois citizens are suffering irreparable injury because their fundamental right to keep and bear arms is being infringed,” the plaintiffs argue. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully urge you to take up this case and grant the requested injunctive relief.”
Representing Bevis, National Foundation for Gun Rights Executive Director Hannah Hill said Barrett could on her own issue a temporary injunction.
“So basically we’re asking that the Supreme Court suspend the enforcement of that law until the case is decided,” Hill told The Center Square.
National Foundation for Gun Rights Executive Director Hannah Hill
Greg Bishop
Barrett could also ask the entire court to consider a preliminary injunction, or the court could do nothing while the case plays out.
Bevis had asked for the Supreme Court to intervene before, but that was before the appeals court ruled. Now that the appeals court has ruled, and a request for the entire appeals court to review rather than just a three-judge panel isn’t guaranteed, Hill is encouraged Barrett has taken notice.
“The fact that she’s asked for a briefing, that she’s turned to Illinois and Naperville and said ‘now give me your best arguments for why we should not grant this relief,’” Hill said. “That’s hugely encouraging.”
Other challenges against Illinois’ gun law remain in federal district and appeals courts.
Of Illinois’ 2.4 million Firearm Owners ID card holders, the latest Illinois State Police data shows just 0.2% have registered a banned item. There are 30 days left before the Jan. 1 deadline to register banned items or criminal penalties could apply, pending any possible court injunction against the deadline.
Meanwhile, across the country in California, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul is siding with that state’s ban on magazines over certain capacities with an amicus brief in the case Duncan v. Bonta.
“States like Illinois should be able to protect residents and communities by passing laws prohibiting the possession and sale of large-capacity magazines,” Raoul said. “I will continue to collaborate with fellow attorneys general who prioritize public safety by restricting access to large-capacity magazines.”
A California district court issued a preliminary injunction against that state’s magazine ban. That case is now in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
