By: Yitong Zhang
Edited by: Isabella Canales and Anisha Iqbal
The US exhibits an unusually high rate of gun mortality, with over 46,000 firearm-related deaths reported in 2023.[1] Compared to other high-income countries, US citizens are 11.4 times more likely to die in a gun homicide.[2] In light of this “public health epidemic,” firearm legislation has become an increasingly contested topic in the United States.[3] Different groups, often divided on partisan lines, hold varying opinions on how best to promote public safety in the wake of increasing gun violence. In the legal realm, these arguments hinge on differing interpretations of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has increasingly weighed in, deciding several key cases regarding Second Amendment rights in the past 20 years. Focusing on recent Illinois laws as a case study, I explore how Supreme Court rulings affect the creation of local gun legislation, in many cases limiting the scope of what local legislatures can legally enact.
Legal Context: Second Amendment Supreme Court Cases
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution establishes “the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”[4] Interpretations of this text have shifted greatly over time, especially as changes in modern technology bring up challenging questions about regulation and implementation. Lawmakers and judges must attempt to reconcile the historical context of the original text with the very different technological reality of today, following the guidance of the Supreme Court as the country’s highest court.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Court established that the individual right to possess a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment.[5] The 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago later extended this protection of gun rights, applying it to the states through the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment.[6]
The Court again deliberated the scope of the Second Amendment in Caetano v. Massachusetts. In accordance with the Heller ruling, which established that the Second Amendment “extends… to… arms… that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” stun guns and other modern weapons count as protected arms.[7] 6 years later, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. V. Bruen (2022), the Court ruled that any newly established firearm restrictions must be consistent with historical firearm laws, or else they constitute a breach of equal protection under the Second Amendment.[8]
Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi (2024) the Court upheld laws restricting gun ownership rights of people convicted of domestic violence, qualifying the Second Amendment as fundamental but “not unlimited.”[9] The written opinions revealed the confusion caused by the Bruen ruling, which established unclear guidelines that feel incongruous with the current times. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor notes that continuing to use historical principles from time periods that discounted women and people of color contradicts modern ideals of American democracy. Overall, the Supreme Court has inconsistently resolved the contradiction between historical and modern levels of scrutiny. While the Bruen ruling employed an originalist framework that examined the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified, Heller takes the opposite approach. Instead of restricting Second Amendment protections to situations referred to in the original context, it extended the scope to non-traditional weapons. The Court’s reasoning contains many discrepancies between cases decided less than a decade apart, leaving behind unclear guidelines for the future.
Karina’s Law
The Rahimi ruling established guidelines for the implementation of Karina’s Law, an Illinois law passed in January 2025. Named after Karina Gonzalez, who filed for an order of protection from her husband 48 hours before he shot and killed her and her daughter, it requires law enforcement to confiscate firearms from anyone with an order of protection against them, within a time frame of 96 hours.[10] State Senator Celina Villanueva, the sponsor of the bill, claims that it “closes a dangerous loophole” previously rendering it unclear who was responsible for firearm removal.[11]
While the bill garnered bipartisan support in the Illinois General Assembly, opponents stated concerns that it violates the right to due process, claiming that the preemptive removal of a gun assumes guilt before conviction. However, State Attorney Jamie Mosser expressed confidence that any legal challenge against the law would fail, as it only permits temporary firearm removals.[12]
Protect Illinois Communities Act
The 2023 Protect Illinois Communities Act, introduced by Governor Pritzker following the 2022 mass shooting in Highland Park, presented a much more controversial piece of legislation. Similar to local laws previously enacted in Chicago, it banned the sale of specific assault weapons and attachments.[13] It also increased regulation on existing assault weapons, requiring current owners to file an endorsement affidavit using their Firearm Owner’s Identification Card account. Section 2 of the law listed a number of exemptions, including several categories of federal employees in addition to various classifications of non-residents. The Act immediately faced lawsuits on both the local and federal levels.
In Illinois, the Circuit Court of Macon County entered a declaratory judgment for the bill, citing a prima facie violation of equal protection because the bill singled out categories of individuals exempt from the ban. The state appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed and upheld the ban.
On the national level, federal District Court Judge Stephen Glynn issued a temporary injunction to halt the implementation of the bill, which was then put on hold by the 7th Circuit Court. A 3-judge appeals panel from the Circuit Court reviewed and upheld the ban, recognizing that restrictions imposed on other amendments have historically been sustained. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari and sent it back to the District Judge for trial. 18 months after the original proceedings, Judge Glynn imposed a permanent injunction on the bill, with a stay for 30 days to allow appeals. The Illinois Attorney General subsequently appealed the case to the 7th Circuit Court, which decided to allow enforcement of the law to continue while it deliberates on a final judgment.
As of now, the Protect Illinois Communities Act remains in effect, limiting the sale and possession of assault weapons in the state. While it has survived many legal challenges, its future stays uncertain. The 7th Circuit Court will likely uphold the ban a second time, but gun rights lobbyists would almost certainly appeal once again to the Supreme Court. If the Court decides to grant certiorari, it would definitively decide the fate of the bill, with wide-ranging implications for future gun legislation. The Court seems poised to look disfavorably upon the ban, as it has recently trended towards expanding the right of individual gun ownership within the country.
Conclusion
These two recent pieces of legislation demonstrate the current political climate concerning gun legislation. Even in Illinois, a very liberal state with much lower rates of gun ownership than the national average, laws restricting access to guns face great legal resistance.[14] Gun rights advocates have started to rely on a sympathetic Supreme Court, whose conservative majority has consistently expanded the reach of Second Amendment rights in the modern era. However, the Court has recognized certain restrictions on gun rights, leaving room for less ambitious government regulations to pass. The success of Karina’s Bill illustrates the potential for more narrowly tailored pieces of legislation, especially when they appeal to universal moral principles as opposed to ideological values.
Notes:
1. Gramlich, John. “What the Data Says about Gun Deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 5 Mar. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/.
2. Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway. “Violent Death Rates in the US Compared to Those of the Other High-Income Countries, 2015.” Preventive Medicine 123 (June 2019): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026.
3. “The Public Health Approach to Prevent Gun Violence.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/research-reports/the-public-health-approach-to-prevent-gun-violence.
4. U.S. Const. amend. II
5. District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
6. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
7. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411 (2016).
8. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
9. Karina’s Law, H.B. 4144, 103rd Illinois General Assembly.
10. “Villanueva Passes Karina’s Law to Protect Domestic Violence Survivors.” ISDC, January 6, 2025. https://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/caucus-news/64-senator-celina-villanueva-news/6001-villanueva-passes-karinas-law-to-protect-domestic-violence-survivors.
11. Szalinski, Ben. “Illinois Lawmakers Advance ‘Karina’s Bill’ to Remove Guns from Domestic Violence Situations.” ABC7 Chicago, January 9, 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-gun-laws-lawmakers-advance-karinas-bill-remove-guns-domestic-violence-situations/15774601/.
12. Protect Illinois Communities Act, Public Act 102-1116 (2023).
13. McCracken, Heather. Gun ownership in America | rand. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html.
Bibliography:
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 “Federal Appeals Panel Upholds Illinois Assault Weapons Ban.” CBS News. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/federal-appeals-panel-upholds-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/.
Feurer, Todd, and Darius Johnson. “Federal Judge Rules Illinois Assault Weapons Ban Unconstitutional.” CBS News, November 8, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/.
Gramlich, John. “What the Data Says about Gun Deaths in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 5 Mar. 2025, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/.
Grinshteyn, Erin, and David Hemenway. “Violent Death Rates in the US Compared to Those of the Other High-Income Countries, 2015.” Preventive Medicine 123 (June 2019): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.026.
Gun policy in America: An overview | rand. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/gun-policy-in-america.html.
Karina’s Law, H.B. 4144, 103rd Illinois General AssemblyMcCracken, Heather. Gun ownership in America | rand. Accessed February 10, 2025. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 . 2009
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1
Protect Illinois Communities Act, Public Act 102-1116 (2023)
“The Public Health Approach to Prevent Gun Violence.” Center for Gun Violence Solutions. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/research-reports/the-public-health-approach-to-prevent-gun-violence.
Szalinski, Ben. “Illinois Lawmakers Advance ‘Karina’s Bill’ to Remove Guns from Domestic Violence Situations.” ABC7 Chicago, January 9, 2025. https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-gun-laws-lawmakers-advance-karinas-bill-remove-guns-domestic-violence-situations/15774601/.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S.
“Villanueva Passes Karina’s Law to Protect Domestic Violence Survivors.” ISDC, January 6, 2025. https://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/caucus-news/64-senator-celina-villanueva-news/6001-villanueva-passes-karinas-law-to-protect-domestic-violence-survivors.
