A crushing blow came to the lovers of freedom the other week in their fight to have a draconian measure reversed. So-called “assault weapons” have been subjected to an arbitrary and unconstitutional ban in the Prairie State, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment. Cam posed the question if SCOTUS will intervene or not, and there has been some traction with the high court wanting answers to questions. On November 30th, the National Association for Gun Rights sent out a notice about the court’s request.

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 (legal arm of the National Association 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.

This is not the first time that NAGR has asked Barrett to step in and intervene in this case. Earlier this year they made a similar appeal, which Barrett did not acquiesce to. Although, there’s something to the high court asking Illinois and Naperville to submit arguments, and possibly some promise.

There’s no doubt that some lower courts appear to be playing games with Second Amendment cases. The Ninth, Second, Fourth, and possibly the Third Circuit Courts of Appeal look like they are executing a large game of “keep-away,” trying everything under the sun to slow the progress of these cases, in particular to keep the cases away from SCOTUS.

NAGAR’s statement further notes that, “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.

What’s beyond baffling to me is something I brought up over the weekend. There were four cases that the Supreme Court of the United States gave grant, vacate, and remand orders to concerning arms; the Hawaii open carry case, the California and New Jersey magazine capacity cases, and the Maryland so-called “assault weapons” case. None of these conflicts have been fully resolved, whereas they should have been no-brainers. The Maryland case was argued a year ago this week. So, what gives?

There’s no telling whether or not the high court is going to step in on this particular case. It seems SCOTUS does not have an appetite for getting involved prematurely in the middle of ripe conflict. However, how ripe is this particular conflict? They’ve already ordered a do-over in the similar case involving Maryland’s gun ban.

In my opinion, it’d be irresponsible for SCOTUS not to issue a restraining order against Illinois and Naperville – with a robust opinion attached to it. The court needs to re-assert itself, and sooner rather than later. We’ll have to see what the defendants have to say to defend their unconstitutional policies and then wait some more on whether or not we’ll get a high-powered Barrett order/opinion.