July 12, 2024 – Last week, in Harrel v. Raoul, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a set of challenges to the Illinois “assault weapons” ban, however, it did so because the lower courts had yet to develop a full record due to the preliminary nature of those proceedings. Significantly, Justice Thomas issued a statement regarding the matter, wherein he questioned the validity of the Illinois law, as well as the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that the Second Amendment does not protect “militaristic” weapons – going as far as calling the Seventh Circuit’s definition of that term “nonsensical.” This statement comes closely on the heels of Justice Sotomayor’s statement in the recent bump stock case, Garland v. Cargill, that the shooter affixed bump stocks to “commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.” Noting that Justice Samuel Alito would grant the petition to hear the case, Justice Thomas stated that the underlying decision by the Seventh Circuit “illustrates why this Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers.” Justice Thomas expressed his hope of hearing the “important issues presented” once the cases reach a final judgment and are “ripe” for review.
In highlighting the “nonsensical” words used by the Seventh Circuit, Justice Thomas noted that “no army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic,” such as the AR-15 subject to the Illinois ban at issue in Harrel. Justice Thomas further stated that it “is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.” He concluded that the Illinois ban is “highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.” Finally, Justice Thomas warned the Seventh Circuit that if the court “ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, [the U.S. Supreme Court] can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit the Seventh Circuit to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”
Separately, the Supreme Court also sidestepped a set of other Second Amendment cases following its recent ruling upholding a law intended to protect victims of domestic violence and remanded those cases for further proceedings. These cases included challenges to various federal laws prohibiting certain persons from possessing firearms and the matter of Antonyuk v. James, which challenges multiple aspects of New York’s “SAFE Act” with numerous firearm restrictions including a requirement that a person demonstrate “good moral character” to be issued a permit to own or possess a handgun. We note that the Court still has another firearm case on its docket for the fall, weighing the Biden Administration’s appeal of the ATF’s Final Rule regarding when partially finished frames/receivers become firearms for purposes of the Gun Control Act.
Renzulli Law Firm continues to monitor firearm litigation across the United States. If you have any questions about cases involving the Second Amendment or the firearm industry, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.