Posted on 05/02/2023 1:57:07 PM PDT by absalom01
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett requested a further response from an Illinois locality after gun rights advocates sued over a recently passed ban on certain firearms.
The gun rights advocates are challenging a city ordinance passed last year by Naperville, Illinois, which is similar to an Illinois state law enacted this year barring the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines. Barrett, who handles appeals stemming from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, asked for Naperville officials to respond by noon on May 8.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), in conjunction with the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR), says the law conflicts with the high court's NYSRPA v. Bruen decision last year, which ruled gun laws must align with constitutional text and history.
"We’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously," Dudley Brown, President of NAGR, told the Washington Examiner. "Any ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ is plainly unconstitutional, and now it is on the city of Naperville to explain the legal justification for their ban. Of course, there isn’t any. The bans were ludicrous from the start, and if Illinois had any sense, they would wave the white flag now and save us all some time."
Since handing down the Bruen decision last year, the high court so far has not taken up another Second Amendment dispute. However, the Bruen decision made waves across lower courts, leading to 31 successful claims against previously existing gun restrictions across various states with gun control laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
One of the reasons for the coordinated attack on SCOTUS that we've been seeing for the past couple of weeks.
It'll get worse before it gets better.
The Northern Circuit in Illinois never seems to see a gun control law it doesn’t like. However, the injunction laid down by the Southern Circuit last week is both clear and compelling in its reasoning: the “historical tradition” of gun control only affects “how and where” arms may be carried, not the type of firearm nor any items affecting its functionality like magazine capacity, aiming mechanisms, triggers, etc.
“As expected, lots of activity in the courts as liberal gun grabbing jurisdictions try to maneuver around Gruen.”
The case name you’re referring to is NYSRPA (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association) v Bruen, not “Gruen”.
:-)
Dudley Brown, President of NAGR, is not to be trusted.
Bruen was brilliantly written. Of course, I’d have gone farther, but Thomas managed to get a really powerful ruling accepted by the majority.
Barrett is an interesting Justice. We haven’t heard all that much from her, but one of the things I found when they were debating her nomination to the court was a really strong dissenting opinion that supported 2nd Amendment rights. Dissents are much better guides of the thinking of nominees, since majority opinions are often consensus documents, whereas a dissent tells you where a given justice is really coming from.
A very wise observation, thank you.
Thank you for the correction. I’ve been making too many of these typos lately.. senior moments one after another.
How so?
He used to be Rocky Mtn Gun Owners. I’ve been at the state house when he was there. He is an all or nothing ideologue. We could have got back 30 round mags, but they wanted to keep the ban on 50/100 round mags. Dudley said that wasn’t good enough so we still have the mag ban. He doesn’t understand incrementalism and taking a win when you can get one.
OK, that's got to be frustrating. I remember Jeff Cooper waaay back in 1986 talking about the late addition of the ban on the transfer of newly manufactured full-auto firearms. He, as I recall, felt that the bill was still a good deal on whole, and if giving in to Hughes was needed to get the bill passed, it was a good trade. I disagreed with that, mainly because I didn't think that it was necessary to fold, and that the bill would still pass. But I get your point. There is a role for the absolutist in the organizing and agitating phase. But if we're talking about turning the tables on the incrementalist gun-grabbers, and getting a step back in the right direction, as you describe, it's foolish to not take the deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.