The Supreme Court Refuses to Block Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States opted not to prevent a Democratic-supported ban on ‘assault weapons,’ allowing the restrictions to remain in effect, at least temporarily.

On December 14, the Supreme Court rejected an urgent request for an injunction that sought to halt the Illinois ban on specific semiautomatic rifles and magazines, with none of the justices dissenting.

The ruling keeps intact the law, known as the ‘Protect Illinois Communities Act,’ which prohibits the general public from possessing firearms such as the AR-15 and ammunition magazines with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds.

At the end of November, the National Association for Gun Rights and firearm store owner Robert Bevis submitted an emergency petition. This came after a lower court turned down their request for a preliminary injunction against the statewide ban.

“We won’t stop fighting for our members,” the National Association for Gun Rights said in a post on X (Twitter), reacting to the news.

Hannah Hill, the executive director of the group, mentioned in a social media post that the high court has taken “serious notice” of this case on two separate occasions.

She added, “We look forward to giving them the opportunity to weigh in on the merits.”

In May, at an earlier stage of the case, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ plea for an injunction. Similar to the present situation, none of the justices voiced public dissent at that time or now.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who signed the ‘Protect Illinois Communities Act’ into law in early 2023, hailed the Supreme Court’s latest decision.

“Taking on the gun lobby and passing an ‘assault weapon ban’ was never going to be easy, but it was always the right thing to do,” the Illinois governor said in a post on X (Twitter).

“Today is a historic win for Illinois communities and families,” the post concluded.

Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.

Get The Free News Addicts Newsletter

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

By Hunter Fielding
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2 months ago

H-ang any1 who voted fir this! TREASON!

Andrew T
Andrew T
2 months ago

“at least temporarily…rejected an urgent request for an injunction …”

In my opinion, this article should have spent a lot more time (it spent none) explaining why the quoted part above matters, what it means, and why it’s not nearly the blockbuster news everyone thinks it is.

SCOTUS just said, essentially, that it’s too early for them to get involved. That the current case, at the appellate level, needs to run its course first.

Al Johnson
Al Johnson
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew T

Perhaps we need to keep in mind that this is a news article, and news reporters have deadlines that must be met, so they don’t always have time to find all the information we would like to know in initial reporting. Then there is the old saw – what bleeds leads. If the article led with “A temporary setback on ‘assault’ rifle ban in Illinois”, the readership would probably decline by magnitudes. While some would consider this clickbait, and to an extent they would be right, a good reporter still has to report what he has and believes to be true as fast as he can.

2 months ago
Reply to  Al Johnson

I believe it goes no deeper than clickbait nowadays. Gone are the ‘who, where, when, and why’ parts which leave me wondering more than answering any questions.

2 months ago

I still want to know if this includes the para-military AND the military factions – or is it a law MERELY for the general public and against the USofA’s Constitution which btw, is their MAIN priority to protect…? Supposedly anyway.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x