Photo Courtesy of Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Previous Post
Next Post

In a significant move for gun rights advocacy, Gun Owners of America (GOA), a group representing over 2 million members and activists, has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review Illinois’ controversial rifle ban, as reported by FoxNews. The law in question, the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), has been a point of contention, drawing criticism for its sweeping prohibitions on a wide array of rifles and magazines owned and used lawfully by tens of thousands of citizens in the state.

The petition, filed by GOA and its affiliate, the Gun Owners Foundation, on Monday, marks a pivotal step in their ongoing challenge against what many Americans see as a blatantly unconstitutional measure. Erich Pratt, senior vice president of GOA, emphasized the organization’s preparedness to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary, underscoring the urgency of addressing the law’s restrictions on the purchase of semiautomatic firearms due to legislation passed by anti-gun lawmakers.

“We urge the Justices to hear the pleas of millions of Americans in Illinois and several other states nationwide who cannot purchase many of the commonly owned semiautomatic firearms available today because of the unconstitutional laws passed by anti-gun politicians,” Pratt told FoxNews.

The Protect Illinois Communities Act, enacted last year by Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker, outlines stringent penalties for the possession, manufacture, sale and importation of so-called “assault weapons” or .50-caliber rifles, among other restrictions. It mandates that individuals already in possession of such firearms register them with the Illinois State Police.

The legal journey of the PICA saw a momentary victory for its challengers when District Judge Stephen Patrick McGlynn, a Trump appointee, ruled in their favor, critiquing the law for infringing upon Second Amendment rights. However, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, allowing the law to take effect on January 10, 2024.

The compliance deadline for registering affected firearms sparked confusion and a significant rate of noncompliance among Illinois’ firearm owners, as highlighted by Fox News Digital. With more than 2.4 million Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cardholders in the state, only a fraction had complied with the registration requirement by the year’s end, showcasing the challenges and resistance faced by the law’s implementation. To be clear, not all 2.4 FOID cardholders own the affected semi-auto rifles, but it compliance among those who do was in the single digits.

Gun rights activists, buoyed by the Supreme Court filing, are hopeful for a favorable outcome that will assert the constitutional rights of gun owners against what they argue are overly restrictive and unconstitutional bans on commonly owned firearms used for a variety of legal purposes including target shooting, hunting, home defense and competition. The stance of Sam Paredes, a board member of the Gun Owners Foundation, encapsulates the sentiment of many in the gun rights community, anticipating that the Supreme Court will rectify what they see as a direct challenge to the Second Amendment by Illinois legislators.

“JB Pritzker and his colleagues in the Illinois General Assembly openly defied the Supreme Court and the Constitution when they passed their ‘emergency’ bill to ban so-called ‘assault weapons,'” Paredes told FoxNews. “We are optimistic the justices will choose to hear the case and make clear once and for all that ‘assault weapons’ bans on tens of millions of commonly owned rifles are wholly out of line with the Second Amendment.”

As the case awaits potential review by the highest court in the land, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for gun legislation and Second Amendment rights across the United States.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. GOA is seeking cert from an interlocutory decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction. not a final judgment on a permanent injunction. To date, the Court has indicated it is not interested in taking cases that are not final for all purposes. The odds of a grant of certiorari are therefore quite slim. There are, fortunately, at least two AW ban cases that have proceeded to final judgment pending in the Courts of Appeal, and the odds on one or both being granted cert (if those courts ever issue their decisions–they seem to be delaying doing so) are fairly decent.

    • “There are, fortunately, at least two AW ban cases that have proceeded to final judgment pending in the Courts of Appeal,…”

      Any estimates as to how long they may take to drag it out to the bitter end?

      (Because you know that’s *exactly* what they are gonna do… 🙁 )

      • There are no statutory deadlines for cases in the Court of Appeals.
        In Bianchi v. Frosh, challenging Maryland’s aw ban, for example, the Court of Appeals reversed a judgment for plaintiffs and entered final judgment, a writ of certiorari was granted, and the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Bruen. The case went down to a 3 judge panel which heard argument, which appeared poised to issue a decision. (Scuttlebut is that it was a 2-1 decision for plaintiffs invalidating the ban.) But by machinations unknown, the Fourth Circuit took the case en banc and reset oral argument. It has since sought additional briefing as to who has the burden of proving “in common use.” [Under Bruen, the State has the burden of proving that a weapon is NOT in common use; the Fourth Circuit’s order therefore REVERSES the analysis.] Oral argument is on March 20. Meanwhile, sensing that the fix was in, Plaintiffs have filed a petition for cert that has at least a reasonable chance of being granted given the prior history of the case. This should be an easy cae, but the waters were muddied when the Seventh Circuit overturned a preliminary injunction on the Illinois aw ban on the basis that ARs did not fall within the scope of the 2A.

        California has a number of cases pending, the first being Duncan v. Bonta, a large magazine ban case that raises identical issues, oral argument to be held March 24. This is on appeal from a final judgment. Stayed pending Duncan is Miller v. Bonta, another decision by Judge Benitez, overturning California’s AW ban. Again, this is an appeal from a final judgment, but the usual course of events for the Ninth is to await the panel decision, and if it is in favor of Plaintiffs, to grant en banc review. It could be literally years before the case is finished in the Ninth Circuit absent a decision by the Supreme Court eliminating such bans.

        • “It could be literally years before the case is finished in the Ninth Circuit absent a decision by the Supreme Court eliminating such bans.”

          They’re playing the long game and hoping the SCotUS bench will be populated by Leftists hell-bent on reversing ‘Heller’… 🙁

  2. I have zero confidence SCOTUS will fix anything. ILLannoy will defy it all anyway. And now the Dims want to make buying any gat a nightmare in the land of Lincoln🙄☹️ Mandated training just get a dam FOID…

  3. I’ve been on board for a few years. I feel like they truly have gun owner’s best interests at heart……looking at you Wayne.

    • “thing might happen.”

      May not be as quick as we may want, but it will happen…

  4. Annnnnnd, the Supreme Court says “No that’s unconstitutional and is not permitted.”
    Annnnnnd, the BATFE says ” Fck the Supreme Court.”

    • Most all my money goes towards the BUYMEASACKOFTATORS Fund.
      I thought I was joking when I said Hamburger was going to be $14 a pound. Now the jokes on me.

      • $14 a pound? You’re shopping at the wrong market…

        Try Steve‘s, they have a slightly better price:

        “Beef Ground
        $5.49 – $6.99
        These Ground Beef selections are offered in 1 lb. packages.“

        (913) 583.1390
        32685 Lexington Avenue
        De Soto, Kansas 66018
        [email protected]

  5. Thanks to the libertarians liberals and the left, for supporting an anti-civil rights Black woman. The first black woman to be on the Supreme Court.

    Because the libertarians thought it was so wonderful to have a black woman on the Supreme Court, of course what she thought about the law didn’t matter to them.

    The white libertarians only seem to have considered the color of her skin.

    Yeah that’s right I said it.

    What is a woman???

    “Cato scholars are not the only libertarians who have kind words for Judge Jackson. Former representative Amash, a Michigan Republican”

    “said this week, “Happy to see President Biden nominate someone to the Supreme Court who holds more than a few truly liberal views.”

    • “Justice Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.

      Justice Jackson has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed.“,the%20Supreme%20Court%20in%201923.

        • “Which don’t have shit to do with it“

          So a private citizen says Justice Jackson has some ‘liberal views’ and you think that’s more important than her actual record showing she has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed?

          So you really don’t care about her actual qualifications, you’re upset because she might have ‘liberal views’.

          Got it.

      • minor49iq…Leave it to you to defend the Indefensible. A woman who cannot define Woman is not qualified to be making decisions for those who can. She is the token black for the democRat Party the party that Owns the Legacy of Slavery and other race based atrocities that include Gun Control. C’mon man…According to History a Black American belonging to the democRat Party makes as much sense as a Jew belonging to the nazi party…Don’t you think?

      • Amazing how so many people foolishly think you can’t fight back. If the people who take away your civil right are h0-m-0-sexu-@l.

        Or if they are anti-civil rights blacks or anti-civil rights Jew!sh people. You’re a r@cist if you fight back. You’re a joo hater if you fight back.

        Well, I don’t think that way. I fight back.

  6. Joe Biden, the most prolific human trafficker and slaver in US history and US tax payers are footing the bill.

    • Joe Biden? I thought this article was about the Supreme Court considering a case.

      OK, here’s some great news, another member of Donald Trump’s administration sent to federal prison:

      “Peter Navarro, former trade adviser to Donald Trump, has been sentenced to four months in prison and a $9,500 (£7,500) fine for contempt of Congress. Navarro was convicted in September after he ignored a subpoena from a House committee investigating alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election“

      • minor49iq…More Russian Collusion? It appears biden’s mental decline saved his bacon from a long, long list of charges for having classified documents spread all over the place.
        So by that decision biden is not mentally fit to continue playing potus and must be replaced with a just as mentally ill midget known as giggles…That’s insult to injury so for now it’s more jacked up joe until his heart stops which is where the clown show seems to be heading. IMO.

  7. Pittsburgh Police Will Only Respond To Emergencies & No Officers in Dispatch Offices 3-7 am Daily.

    • So what’s the problem, Pittsburgh is one of the more safe cities in the United States.

      Oh right, the chicken little school of propaganda. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

      “Pittsburgh ranked as one of America’s safest cities, new study finds
      By Garrett Behanna
      October 3, 2023 / 11:09 AM EDT / CBS Pittsburgh

      PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – New data from VisitPITTSBURGH suggests that Pittsburgh ranks among the top safest cities in the United States.

      The research identifies Pittsburgh as the No. 1 safest city with regard to property crime and is the third-safest city against violent crime.

      The report, conducted by 2Synergize, compared Pittsburgh data from a three-mile radius around the David L. Lawrence Convention Center throughout 2022 and compared the Steel City against several others across the country, per a news release from VisitPITTSBURGH“

      • “New data from VisitPITTSBURGH…”

        “The report, conducted by 2Synergize, compared Pittsburgh data from a three-mile radius around the David L. Lawrence Convention Center…”

        Why would they use some “arbitrary” three-mile radius centered on some “arbitrary” point in the city? Notice that the people who put this together are promoting tourism to their city. This doesn’t compare the crime stats of Pittsburgh vs the crime stats of other cities.

        Chicago still beat them according to their own study. You should feel safe in Chicago. They probably don’t need any police there either, right Miner?

Comments are closed.