Supreme Court Justice Barrett Considering NAGR Case to Overturn Illinois’ Gun Ban

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

Washington D.C. – Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is considering granting an emergency injunction filed by the National Association for Gun Rights, to stop enforcement of a ban on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines.

This follows the 7th Circuit’s 3-judge panel ruling that AR-15s are not “arms” as far as the Second Amendment is concerned.

“The 7th Circuit just said that ARs are not guns entitled to Second Amendment protection. It doesn’t get much more outrageous than that – and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appears to agree. She just sent a huge signal that lower-court defiance of Bruen and Heller will not be tolerated,” said Hannah Hill Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights.

Illinois and Naperville have until Wednesday, December 6, to submit their best arguments for why the Supreme Court should not step in and block their gun bans.

The application for injunction references 2022’s Bruen decision, “Bruen rejected means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context, reiterated Heller’s text, history and tradition framework, and called on lower courts to stop treating the right to keep and bear arms as a ‘second-class right.'”

The Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appeal may be found here.

“Justice Barrett has been watching this case closely, and last time we asked her for an emergency appeal the 7th Circuit only dodged a SCOTUS smackdown by expediting the case. Well, the 7th Circuit has ruled now – and they got it wrong, big time,”  said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

“We look forward to reading Illinois’ attempts to explain why gun bans are consistent with the Second Amendment, and we are confident that this unconstitutional law won’t fly with Justice Barrett,” said Brown.


         The National Association for Gun Rights is the nation’s largest “no compromise” pro-gun organization, with 4.5 million members nationwide.

###

7th Circuit Denies Preliminary Injunction in Illinois Assault Weapons Case

At the close of last week, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied our motion for preliminary injunction against the state of Illinois’ and the city of Naperville’s bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” You can read the ruling here.

The majority opinion, authored by Wood and supported by Easterbrook, deemed that the banned firearms and magazines in the so-called “Protect Illinois Communities Act” are not “arms” under the Second Amendment.

This is an utterly ridiculous statement, and as dissenting Judge Brennan states, “[t]he banned firearms propel bullets by explosive force from gunpowder, yet the government parties ask us to conclude that these rifles and pistols are not ‘Arms.’”

Following the request of the government, the majority opinion decided that the firearms in question are not “arms” at all, and with that conclusion ruled that our case and our fellow plaintiffs’ cases are likely to fail on those merits alone.

The majority did this by drawing an imaginary line that puts weapons useful for civilian purposes on one side, and weapons useful for military purposes on the other side. For example, they justified the regulation on handgun magazines by stating since the M18, the standard sidearm in the military has standard magazines of 17 or 21 rounds, that magazines that size can be reserved for military use without infringing on the Second Amendment.

Perhaps most concerning in the majority opinion is the constant citation of the Friedman decision from 2012. This decision was authored by none other than Judge Easterbrook and was abrogated by the Supreme Court under the Bruen decision.

While not receiving the injunction is certainly disappointing, this was the expected outcome. We drew a panel with two known antigun judges, and as expected they misapplied the Bruen standard in coming to their decision.

We will be deciding in the coming days if we are appealing this case to the Supreme Court, or if we will instead appeal to an en banc panel in the 7th Circuit.

Click here to donate to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment in the Courts!

National Foundation for Gun Rights press release

National Foundation for Gun Rights Asking Supreme Court for Emergency Relief from Assault Weapons Ban

Contact: NFGR Press Room
Tel. 877-405-4570
Email: pressdept@gunrightsfoundation.org

Loveland, CO – The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) is asking the United States Supreme Court to provide emergency relief from two assault weapons bans in place in Illinois.

NFGR argues that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. NFGR’s lawsuit also challenges an AR-15 sale ban enacted by the City of Naperville, IL.

NFGR initially requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois blocking both the state and local bans on behalf of fellow plaintiff, Naperville gun store owner Robert Bevis, whose livelihood has been severely impacted by both bans. The district court trampled multiple Supreme Court precedents to rule against gun rights, so foundation attorneys appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, pleading that Plaintiff Bevis was facing the loss of his business without speedy relief.

The Seventh Circuit declined to temporarily block the two semi-auto bans pending its review of the preliminary injunction appeal, so NFGR is filing an Emergency Application for Injunction Pending Appellate Review with the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The assault weapons ban is a blatant violation of the rights of law-abiding citizens and does nothing to address the causes of gun violence,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. “Between them, Illinois and the City of Naperville are about to drive a law-abiding gun store owner into bankruptcy just because they don’t like his business. That’s grossly unconstitutional, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.”

The Emergency Appeal may be found here: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Motion-in-S-Ct.pdf

The National Association for Gun Rights’ legal defense arm, the National Foundation for Gun Rights works to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is a 501(c)(3) organization that exists to expand pro-gun precedents and defend gun owners in the courts.

###

Fighting “Assault Weapons” Bans at the 7th Circuit

“Go home. There’s nothing unconstitutional about this gun ban.”

That’s exactly what a federal judge said in response to our lawsuit challenging semi-auto and mag bans in the state of Illinois.

In one of the worst rulings our legal team has ever witnessed, the Bush-appointed judge defied both the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling and the Second Amendment by upholding Illinois’ “Assault Weapons” Ban.

National Foundation for Gun Rights attorneys lost no time in filing an emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

“End All Semi-Auto Bans” Litigation Blitz

This lawsuit — Bevis v. Naperville, IL —  is one of seven lawsuits the National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed across the United States to end semi-auto and mag bans once and for all under the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.

Our first lawsuit in Colorado saw early victories, with an Obama-appointed judge issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking a gun ban in the first post-Bruen victory for gun rights, followed by another TRO issued by a Biden appointee. Both TROs acknowledged that under Bruen, gun bans don’t have a leg to stand on. Then Everytown’s lawyers got to work.

Enter the anti-gun legal horde

Intent on finding loopholes in Bruen, national anti-gun organizations like Everytown, Giffords, and March for Our Lives (David Hogg’s organization) jumped in on all our lawsuits, filing hundreds of pages of dreadful legal arguments in nearly all our semi-auto ban lawsuits. The arguments they brought ranged from legal fiction to ludicrous absurdity.

For instance, Giffords argued that “Plaintiffs’ test also dangerously fails to consider the potential of the firearms industry over-saturating the market to manufacture ‘common use.’” (In other words, manufacturers sold too many guns and they did it on purpose to artificially protect AR-15s under the Second Amendment — a bizarre argument that makes no sense.)

The US Conference of Mayors tried to blame the violence problem in our country on “domestic extremists that harbor anti-government sentiment” and who “self-radicalize via online engagement” –basically calling us and all our supporters domestic terrorists because we don’t trust the government and we share memes on Facebook.

Federal judge: “Gun bans consistent with the Second Amendment”

Unfortunately, a federal judge in Illinois listened to the anti-gun organizations’ outrageous arguments and mangled the Supreme Court’s standard in Heller and Bruen to rule against gun owners.

The Supreme Court previous said in Heller that states can ban weapons if they are “dangerous AND unusual,” like bombers or tanks. The federal judge twisted this to say that a state can ban guns that are “dangerous OR unusual.”

Since all guns are dangerous, all guns are obviously “dangerous OR unusual.” In other words, this judge basically said that a state can ban any gun it wants — a result completely in defiance with what the Supreme Court actually said.  

Emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit

As of this writing, our legal team is in the process of filing an emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit to block the Illinois semi-auto ban, along with a local semi-auto ban passed by the City of Naperville, IL, where our plaintiff (a local gun store owner) lives.

The case, as our lawyers emphasize to the courts, is simple. The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s rulings all prohibit gun bans of commonly owned weapons — like America’s Rifle, the AR-15.

If the Seventh Circuit judges refuse to acknowledge this, we will appeal directly to the Supreme Court to defend the rights of gun owners by ending the leftist attacks on semi-automatic weapons for good. You can read our appeal here.

NFGR Sues Over Just-Enacted Illinois Semi-Auto Ban

We are suing the state of Illinois over their newly passed “assault weapon” ban. While we have not filed any brand new lawsuit, we have been able to amend our current lawsuits in Highland Park and Naperville to incorporate the new state law.

NFGR has been proactive in restoring the rights of Illinoisans taking two ripe opportunities in Highland Park and Naperville to attack existing “assault weapon” bans. By merging the state ban into the existing lawsuits we are able to move the legal process forward much faster than if we had started the whole process over with a new claim.

Not only will this help with resource management by not redoing work we have already done, it will send a clear message to other states considering similar laws. These violations of our freedoms will not be tolerated.

Both our Naperville and Highland Park lawsuits can be read about here.

To help us continue fighting for your rights please donate here.

Highland Park, IL “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Ban Lawsuit

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the city of Highland Park, IL to overturn their so called “assault weapon” and magazine ban. We have amended our complaint to incorporate the state “assault weapon” ban as well. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Highland Park is in the 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit, including Wisconsin and Indiana.

Naperville, IL “Assault Weapon” Sale Ban

The National Foundation for Gun Rights is suing the city of Naperville, IL for an “assault weapon” sale ban. We have amended our complaint to incorporate the state “assault weapon” ban as well. Our plaintiff, Robert Bevis, is a local gun store owner who stepped up to challenge this unconstitutional ban by speaking with his city council to try and stop this terrible law. With the decision handed down in Bruen, laws like this one will now need to find their justification in the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment. These laws ban firearms that are in common use throughout the United States in violation of the rule set forth in Heller. Highland Park is in the 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A victory here will establish good legal precedent throughout the entire circuit including Wisconsin and Indiana.