(The Center Square) – Plaintiffs in an Illinois case challenging a local and statewide gun and magazine ban are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an injunction against the law while the case is on appeal.
In November, Robert Bevis and Law Weapons and other plaintiffs sued the city of Naperville, challenging the city’s gun and magazine ban. After Illinois enacted a gun and magazine ban Jan. 10, the plaintiffs amended their challenge to include the statewide ban.
A Northern District of Illinois federal judge heard the case earlier this year and in February sided with the state and city and against a preliminary injunction. On appeal to the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction while the appeal plays out, but the appeals court denied that request on April 18, while allowing the appeal to move forward.
On Wednesday, the plaintiffs filed a request to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett to issue an injunction against the law pending appellate review.
“This is an exceedingly simple case,” the motion said. “The Second Amendment protects arms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, especially self-defense in the home … The arms banned by Respondents are possessed by millions of law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.”
The state has said the ban on certain types of guns and magazines is in response to increased numbers of high profile mass shootings, and the bans impact “dangerous” firearms.
Plaintiffs note recent Supreme Court precedent in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case states the “Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.”
“Unfortunately, if the 10 months of Second Amendment litigation since Bruen have taught us anything, it is that many of the lower courts did not get the message,” the motion said. “The district court did not dispute the evidence; it simply ignored it.”
Plaintiffs argued to Barrett that their injunctive relief shows that their Second Amendment claims are likely to prevail, denying that relief would lead to irreparable injury and granting relief would not harm the public interest.
“Plaintiffs are applying for emergency relief because they are suffering much more than intangible harm to constitutional rights,” the filing says. “Respondents are literally destroying Mr. Bevis’s livelihood, because the challenged laws are forcing Law Weapons Inc. (“LWI”) out of business.”
Because of the ban on sales, Bevis has extended his personal credit, missed personal home and car payments, maxed out credit limits and taken loans for monthly bills, the filing said.
As to whether granting relief would harm the pubic interest, plaintiffs say the district court’s analysis “is surely overblown.”
“[A]ccording to FBI statistics, on average, rifles of all types (of which assault weapons are a subset) were identified as the murder weapon in 315 (or 2.5%) of murders per year,” plaintiffs argue. “By way of comparison, on average, 669 people per year are murdered by ‘personal weapons’ such as hands, fists, and feet. Thus, despite the district court’s histrionics, the possession of these weapons poses no more of a public safety threat than the possession of hands and feet. In summary, therefore, granting relief would not harm the public interest.”
A series of other challenges are pending in all levels of both state and federal court.
