In June, the Supreme Court sent down the most significant gun control case in a decade with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. A massive win for gun rights proponents, the case should have set blue state residents free from the yoke of impermissible restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. It has not. Instead, progressive politicians have doubled down on new regulations, as if the Court didn't broaden Second Amendment protections at all. For now, the Supreme Court is letting things stand while signaling the indulgence won't last forever.
Gun Control Battle in Illinois
Illinois passed a massive package of new gun control laws this week, and its governor, J.B. Pritzker, signed them the same day in an out-of-character rush. Why? Not politics – that's for the other guy. Instead, Pritzker addressed downstate sheriffs, several of whom announced they would refuse to enforce the patently unconstitutional laws.
"The fact is that yes there are of course people who are trying to politically grandstand who want to make a name for themselves by claiming that they will not comply but the reality is that the state police is responsible for enforcement as are all law enforcement all across the state and they will in fact do their job or they won't be in their job"
The new measures included banning innumerable firearms as "assault weapons" if they have common features of modern firearms, rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and pistol magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. That's just the start. After April 10, possession of these magazines will only be allowed on private property, on the premises of a federally licensed gun dealer for repairs, at a firing range or sport shooting competition, or when transporting it to or from these locations. The new law also bans .50 caliber rifles and more.
The Waiting Is the Hardest Part
(Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Will the new restrictions withstand scrutiny in the courts? Not likely. The Supreme Court's decision in the Bruen case held, "Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's ‘unqualified command.’ Just this week, the High Court ruled on an emergency petition to address a new New York law passed after Bruen. The measures impose a host of new burdens on gun owners. A federal district court judge declared those laws likely unconstitutional and issued a stay against their enforcement. The state appealed, however, and the appellate Court reversed the stay while the case progresses through the system.
The plaintiff made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which refused to intervene. There were no dissenters from the order denying the emergency appeal. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a note co-signed by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, assuring gun rights advocates not to read too much into the Court's denial of their petition:
I understand the Court's denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit's procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today's order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.
The Supreme Court ruling in Bruen may leave some room for debate around the margins of what's allowed in firearms regulation. Still, these latest forays by blue state legislators more resemble a fever dream of wants and wishes rather than what's permissible, according to this Supreme Court.
