The U.S. Supreme Court is getting involved in an Illinois gun ban case that could have implications for Chicago and other places trying to ban the sales of what they call "assault weapons."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the city of Naperville to give a further response to a request for a temporary injunction in the case, which would allow the continued sale of the weapons while the case is being decided.

The city has until May 8 at noon to respond to the request.

The law in question

The Naperville city council passed a law in August 2022 that bans selling the weapons, such as AR-15s, and it was quickly challenged by gun rights groups in the locality, a suburb of Chicago.

In particular, gun store owner Robert Bevis sued Naperville over the law, which he said hurts his business because he can't sell certain kinds of weapons.

The case ended up in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied a temporary injunction request by Bevis while the appeal is considered, and Barrett is the justice in charge of cases coming from the 7th Circuit.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR), say the law conflicts with the high court's NYSRPA v. Bruen decision last year, which ruled that gun laws are required to line up with the Constitution and history.

"Plainly unconstitutional"

"We’re thankful the Supreme Court is taking the Second Amendment rights of Illinoisans seriously," President of NAGR Dudley Brown 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."

The Naperville law is similar to one in Chicago, so if the Naperville law is struck down, it could lead to Chicago's law falling as well.

AR-15s are commonly used for hunting, which is why their ban is so controversial. People have used the rifles in mass shootings because they are powerful and can shoot rounds continuously.

Attorneys for Bevis have interpreted previous Supreme Court rulings to mean that in order to be banned, a weapon must be particularly "dangerous and unusual," which AR-15s are not.

Attorneys supporting the ban say that historically, all weapons in use today are "dangerous and unusual."

Implications

The court must realize that if they rule on this case, it will have implications nationally because President Joe Biden is practically foaming at the mouth to get an assault weapons ban at the national level.

It's not going to happen with a GOP-run House, but it's very close, so the Supreme Court may be trying to shut that down before it gets any further.