• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Illinois AWB Challenge: 7th Circuit Declines to 'en banc' Case Cleared to SCOTUS

Reptile said:

Supreme Court allows Illinois semiautomatic weapons ban to stay in place​

Click to expand...
Correct.
Reptile said:

The Illinois law will continue to be litigated in the lower courts​

Click to expand...
Incorrect. The 7th circuit has already ruled and refused a rehearing. What happens next is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.
 
Nightshift said:
If they do not accept this case and rule it unconstitutional, we are lost.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, then "we" are already lost, since in 2015 the court refused to accept the Highland Park AWB.
So maybe in June, 6 months?

So maybe in June, 6 months?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although that would require things to be expedited a bit. June of 2024 is at least as likely. For a typical case, it takes 5 months from the time the petition is filed before arguments and for this one they can expect scores of amici briefs.
 
Last edited:
OR -
They could refuse certiorari AND remand it back to lower court for rehearing with certain principles governing their opinion
 
67ray said:
OR -
They could refuse certiorari AND remand it back to lower court for rehearing with certain principles governing their opinion
Click to expand...
The way that dance is done is that the Court grants cert and remand in a single order In Duncan v. Bonta, for example, the order read:
"Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022)."
 
Reptile said:

Supreme Court allows Illinois semiautomatic weapons ban to stay in place​


The Illinois law will continue to be litigated in the lower courts​


The Supreme Court has allowed an Illinois law banning high-powered semiautomatic weapons to remain in place.

In a Thursday order with no noted dissents or explanation of its decision, the Supreme Court denied a request from the National Association for Gun rights, which asked for a preliminary injunction.

The ban, signed by Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker in January, includes penalties for individuals who, "carries or possesses… manufactures, sells, delivers, imports, or purchases any assault weapon or .50 caliber rifle."

The law also includes statutory penalties for people who, "sells, manufactures, delivers, imports, possesses, or purchases any assault weapon attachment or .50 caliber cartridge."

Continues...
www.foxnews.com

Supreme Court allows Illinois semiautomatic weapons ban to stay in place

The Supreme Court in a Thursday ruling has allowed an Illinois law banning high-powered semiautomatic weapons and magazines to remain in place.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they denied anything to do with this because they've got case(s) on the docket that already address this matter. They won't even need to remand to a lower court like they did with Bruen. It's clear that the lower courts are thumbing their nose at Bruen et al and I suspect that the SC is gearing up for a "did you people not listen? Are you retarded?" type response in 2024. I could be wrong, but I can't see them ignoring this after such a sweeping Bruen decision that was 6-3 decision. Even if you flipped one judge, you still have a 5-4 majority to hear the case. It's something bigger.
 
mav said:
Stupid question, but if SCOTUS took the case and ruled against the IL AWB, how does that impact the MA AWB/mag cap ban? Don't have time to compare what IL is doing compared to what MA already has in place and I don't know enough about the legal system to know if this would matter to MA anyway.

I mean, obviously it would be great if they rule against IL and even better if it invalidates the MA AWB, but I'm not holding my breath...
Click to expand...
If SCOTUS rules against the IL ban then ALL AWBs across the US fall.
 
67ray said:
OR -
They could refuse certiorari AND remand it back to lower court for rehearing with certain principles governing their opinion
Click to expand...
In that case they would GVR - Grant, Vacate, Remand - with the the instructions to the lower court on how to deal with the case.
While they don't actually hear the case, they do grant certiorari for a GVR
 
Parker Schreiber said:
The way that dance is done is that the Court grants cert and remand in a single order In Duncan v. Bonta, for example, the order read:
"Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022)."
Click to expand...
Isn't that because Duncan v. Bonta was originally litigated prior to the Bruen decision?
 
Remember this is for a preliminary injunction so SCOTUS will very likely refuse to intervene and allow the case to play out.
The only way I see them taking this on interlocutory is if someone is jammed up for something ONLY involving this case - and then they will likely stay the criminal proceedings until this case is completed.
 
pastera said:
We won't know until the actual case make its way up to SCOTUS since Barret gave the injunction review the big F'off
Click to expand...
a ruling of such magnitude will probably mean the end of scotus, and they are pretty good about self-preservation in there. they can continue to issue things like bruen, that pretty much mean nothing, but if they cross the line to upset the real balance of things - they will be ended. neither party gonna allow 2a cause to win.
 
paul73 said:
a ruling of such magnitude will probably mean the end of scotus, and they are pretty good about self-preservation in there. they can continue to issue things like bruen, that pretty much mean nothing, but if they cross the line to upset the real balance of things - they will be ended. neither party gonna allow 2a cause to win.
Click to expand...
Now you're being a pessimist. I'm in that club. How could you not be..........
 
pastera said:
The only way I see them taking this on interlocutory is if someone is jammed up for something ONLY involving this case - and then they will likely stay the criminal proceedings until this case is completed.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this case involve Illinoisians getting seriously jammed up on Jan 2024 if they don't register or turn in their scary guns?
 
JoseyWales said:
Doesn't this case involve Illinoisians getting seriously jammed up on Jan 2024 if they don't register or turn in their scary guns?
Click to expand...
Yes but the state would be foolish to actually hammer anyone on this law as a primary charge until the case makes it through to final resolution.
 
pastera said:
Yes but the state would be foolish to actually hammer anyone on this law as a primary charge until the case makes it through to final resolution.
Click to expand...

That's of no real consequence. There are so many ways to address this from a legal perspective you could deny the registration component, deny the confiscation part, or put the whole thing out to pasture. I am hopeful.
 
Dennis in MA said:
I'm thinking they denied anything to do with this because they've got case(s) on the docket that already address this matter. They won't even need to remand to a lower court like they did with Bruen. It's clear that the lower courts are thumbing their nose at Bruen et al and I suspect that the SC is gearing up for a "did you people not listen? Are you retarded?" type response in 2024. I could be wrong, but I can't see them ignoring this after such a sweeping Bruen decision that was 6-3 decision. Even if you flipped one judge, you still have a 5-4 majority to hear the case. It's something bigger.
Click to expand...
I would so love to read an opinion like that. I keep hoping for it.
 

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4NBBfqsW1U

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses today's disappointing news about the Supreme Court's unwillingness to take the matter of Bevis v. Naperville. While many may think this is a disastrous outcome, today we explain why all is not lost and this case is a long way from being over. So learn what all of this means and arm yourself with education today.
 
paul73 said:
a ruling of such magnitude will probably mean the end of scotus, and they are pretty good about self-preservation in there. they can continue to issue things like bruen, that pretty much mean nothing, but if they cross the line to upset the real balance of things - they will be ended. neither party gonna allow 2a cause to win.
Click to expand...
Killing off AWBs won't move the needle nearly as much as overturning Roe.
 
pastera said:
Killing off AWBs won't move the needle nearly as much as overturning Roe.
Click to expand...

This. Methinks NES WAAAAAY overestimates the importance of gun control technicalities to the average voter.

The number of people able to talk intelligently about what an AWB actually entails is probably limited to shooters in affected states, plus a couple hundred normies who make gun control their life's work. Most Americans have no idea, and wouldn't care much even if they did.

Most antis know the talking points, but they don't know what those talking points actually mean.
 
sbhaven said:
The video from NAGR tweet from today is also on Youtube.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odrWCu2VvZ4

Hannah Hill, Executive Director of Legal Affairs for the National Association for Gun Rights, details why the Supreme Court denied our emergency appeal in our Naperville, IL lawsuit and what it means for the future.
Click to expand...


Hadn't seen her before - great presenter that gives the information in layman's terms without hair on fire click baiting.
 

Similar threads

Biden Nominee to 7th Circuit Supported Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ But Cannot Define Them
Replies
23
Views
475
HARRYM
H
Internet accuracy claims put to the test! (Backfire long range challenge.)
Replies
16
Views
465
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
178
Reptile
Reptile
Import ban extended to ♾️
Replies
17
Views
751
Animal357
A
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
143
oldguy68
oldguy68
Back
Top Bottom