Bevis v. City of Naperville

657 F.Supp.3d 1052

Robert BEVIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS, and Jason Arres,in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Defendants.

No. 22 C 4775

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Signed February 17, 2023

Barry Kevin Arrington, Pro Hac Vice, Arrington Law Firm, Denver, CO, Jason R. Craddock, Sr., Law Office of Jason R. Craddock, Oak Brook, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Christopher B. Wilson, Gabriel Tong, Micaela Snashall, Perkins Coie LLC, Chicago, IL, Shira Lauren Feldman, Pro Hac Vice, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, DC, for Defendant City of Naperville, Illinois.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge

After several mass shootings nationwide, the City of Naperville enacted an Ordinance prohibiting the sale of assault weapons. Illinois followed shortly after with the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which bans the sale of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Robert Bevis, who owns a local gun store in Naperville, Law Weapons, and the National Association of Gun Rights sued the state and city, alleging their laws violate the Second Amendment. (Dkt. 48). They now move for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction alleging that their constitutional rights are being violated by the bans. (Dkts. 10, 50). For the following reasons, the motions are denied. (Id.)

BACKGROUND

Mass shootings have become common in America. They have occurred in cities from San Bernadino, California to Newtown, Connecticut, and recently, Highland Park, Illinois. (Dkt. 12-1 at 1-3). In response, several states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York—along with many local municipalities have enacted bans on the possession, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. (Id.) Illinois and the city of Naperville decided to put similar restrictions in place.

On August 17, 2022, Naperville's City Council passed its Ordinance banning the sale of "assault rifles" within the city.¹ (Dkt. 12 at 2). Section 3-19-2 declares "[t]he Commercial Sale of Assault Rifles within the City is unlawful and is hereby prohibited." (Dkt. 12-1 at 8). Violators are subject to fines ranging between $1,000 and $2,500. (Id. at 9). Section 3-19-1 provides both a general definition of an "assault rifle" as well as specific examples of prohibited guns. (Id. at 4). The general definition is as follows:

(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that is not a fixed magazine and has any of the following:

(A) A pistol grip.

(B) A forward grip.

(C) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.

(D) A grenade launcher.

(E) A barrel shroud.

(F) A threaded barrel.

(2) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(3) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

(Id. at 5). Additionally, twenty-six categories of weapons are specifically banned, including AK-47 and AR-15 rifles. (Id. at 5-6). The Ordinance was set to go into effect on January 1, 2023. (Id. at 10).

On January 10, 2023, Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act, HB 5471. (Dkt. 57 at 1). The statute renders it unlawful "for any person within this State to knowingly manufacture, deliver, sell, or purchase or cause to be manufactured, delivered, sold, or purchased or cause to be possessed by another, an assault weapon," defined by a list of enumerated guns, including the AR-15 and AK-47. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b). Additionally, the law bans the sale of "large capacity ammunition feeding device[s]," which are "magazine[s], belt[s], drum[s], [and] feed strip[s] . . . that can be readily restored or converted to accept[ ] more than 10 rounds of ammunition for long guns and more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns." 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10(a). Both state prohibitions went into immediate effect upon the passage of the act (in contrast, the regulations banning assault-weapon and large-capacity magazine ownership and imposing registration requirements have a later effective date and are not being challenged). (Dkt. 57 at 2).

Robert Bevis owns Law Weapons, a firearm store in Naperville. (Dkt. 48 ¶¶ 7-8). He attests, "I and my customers desire to exercise our Second Amendment right to acquire the Banned Firearms . . . for lawful purposes, including, but not limited to, the defense of our homes." (Dkt. 10-2 ¶ 4). Furthermore, he claims that the prohibition means he and his business will go bankrupt, and "the citizens of Naperville will be left as sitting ducks for criminals who will still get guns." (Id. ¶ 5). National Association for Gun Rights ("NAGR") is a nonprofit organization dedicated to "defend[ing] the right of all law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms" and seeks to represent "the interests of its members who reside in the City of Naperville." (Dkt. 10-1 ¶ 2; see also Dkt. 48 ¶ 6).

Before Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act, the plaintiffs—Bevis, Law Weapons, and NAGR—sued Naperville alleging its Ordinance violates the Second Amendment. (Dkt. 1). They moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing its enforcement. (Dkt. 10). The city agreed to stay the Ordinance pending the disposition of the motion. (Dkt. 29). Shortly thereafter, Illinois passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act, and this Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add the state as a party. (Dkts. 41, 47). The plaintiffs promptly filed their Amended Complaint, adding Jason Arres, Naperville's Chief of Police, as a defendant and asserting that both Naperville's Ordinance and Illinois's Protect Illinois Communities Act violate the Second Amendment. (Dkt. 48). They then notified the Illinois Attorney General of their constitutional challenge and moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against both laws.² (Dkts. 49, 50). The Court held oral argument on January 27, 2023. (Dkt. 55).

DISCUSSION

The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are identical. Mays v. Dart, 453 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1087 (N.D. Ill. 2020). "A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Doe v. Univ. of S. Ind., 43 F.4th 784, 791 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest." Halczenko v. Ascension Health, Inc., 37 F.4th 1321, 1324 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20, 129 S.Ct. 365).

I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

A plaintiff must "demonstrate that [his] claim has some likelihood of success on the merits, not merely a better than negligible chance." Doe, 43 F.4th at 791 (quoting Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 822 (7th Cir. 2020)). Analyzing the likelihood of success, the Seventh Circuit has stressed, is "often decisive"—as it is here. Braam v. Carr, 37 F.4th 1269, 1272 (7th Cir. 2022). As set forth below, although the plaintiffs have standing to bring this lawsuit, they are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim because Naperville's Ordinance and the Protect Illinois Communities Act are consistent with the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition.

A. Jurisdiction

Before proceeding to the merits, the Court must be confident in its jurisdiction. N.J. by Jacob v. Sonnabend, 37 F.4th 412, 420 (7th Cir. 2022). Article III grants the federal courts jurisdiction only over "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const. art. III § 2. As such, any person or party "invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so." Hero v. Lake Cnty. Election Bd., 42 F.4th 768, 772 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 704, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013)). The three familiar elements for standing are (1) a concrete and particularized injury actually suffered by the plaintiff that (2) is traceable to the defendant's conduct and (3) can be remedied by judicial relief. Pierre v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 29 F.4th 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2022). All three plaintiffs here have satisfied the standing requirements to bring their lawsuit.

1. Individual Standing

Direct monetary harm is a textbook "injury in fact," and Bevis alleges that, as a gun-store owner in the business of selling the banned weapons, he has lost money in sales, an allegation that clearly establishes harm at this stage. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, — U.S. —, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2204, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021). Illinois's and Naperville's gun laws undeniably caused the harm.

The only wrinkle here relates to the third element: redressability. Before Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act, the plaintiffs sued only Naperville. Municipalities do not enjoy sovereign immunity, so this Court could have redressed the plaintiffs' alleged injury by enjoining the enforcement of a law without issue; the standing inquiry would have been easy. See Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529, 10 S.Ct. 363, 33 L.Ed. 766 (1890). Then, Illinois enacted its own gun regulation that, like Naperville's ordinance, banned the sale of assault weapons. The plaintiffs—likely recognizing that, without the state as a party, this Court...