After the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, both sides of the gun rights debate geared up for the legal battles that would follow.

On the anti-gunner side, states like New York, California, Illinois, and others sought to concoct legislative means to continue infringing on the right to keep and bear arms despite the Court’s decision. They passed laws intended to make it harder for people to obtain firearms and permits to carry them.

Conversely, the pro-gun side began levying legal challenges against gun control laws that have already existed, using the Bruen ruling to strike them down. Those supporting gun rights have already won significant victories in several states.

Nevertheless, the anti-gunners are persisting in their bid to limit gun rights as much as possible. Earlier in 2023, Illinois passed a sweeping ban on semi-automatic weapons. The Supreme Court recently upheld this law as the issue is litigated in lower courts. While this was a victory for the anti-gunners, the Bruen decision will likely ensure that it is a short-lived one as those challenging it will almost certainly use the ruling to argue against the Constitutionality of the measure.

This development is a setback for proponents of gun rights. But the battle is not over yet.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders this week turning down requests to block enforcement of Illinois' assault weapons ban while challenges to the law are still being heard in lower courts.

On Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett turned down a request from Republican state Rep. Dan Caulkins of Decatur and other gun rights advocates who lost their challenge to the law earlier this year at the Illinois Supreme Court.

And on Thursday, the full court issued an unsigned order denying a similar request for an injunction by the National Association for Gun Rights, one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging both the statewide ban and a local ban in the city of Naperville.

NAGR filed its request Nov. 29 while it was waiting for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether it would reconsider its earlier decision upholding the law as constitutional. But the 7th Circuit said Monday it would not reconsider that decision.

The Bruen decision has reshaped the legal landscape surrounding gun rights and will result in the overturning of many unconstitutional gun laws in America. Various aspects of the ruling will likely be brought to bear as the gun rights lobby attacks Illinois’ law.

For starters, there is the issue of historical precedent. Central to the Bruen decision is the Court’s insistence that any gun control law must be consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

This would mean lawyers could argue that a comprehensive prohibition on widely owned and used semi-automatic weapons lacks historical grounding. In the past, there were restrictions on specific weapons such as dueling pistols. But there were no blanket bans on entire categories of firearms, which would suggest that Illinois’ law does not pass Bruen’s historical precedent test.

The Bruen decision also places a heavier burden on the state to justify further restrictions on firearms. Those opposing Illinois’ ban might insist that while the state insists that such a law would protect public safety, it does not supersede Constitutional rights. They could point out that the law is overly broad, affecting responsible citizens disproportionately, and that it makes more sense to directly address the gun violence issue without leaving everyday people more vulnerable to criminal elements.

Critics could also frame the law as an overreach, which would not be too difficult in this case. Penalizing responsible gun owners instead of focusing on the criminal misuse of firearms is not a valid method for curbing gun violence.

In response, the anti-gunner supporters of the law would likely contend that it is the state’s responsibility to protect the citizenry and the measure is a reasonable step to this end. This is the argument gun control supporters typically use without actually showing that these restrictions would actually cut down on gun violence and prevent mass shootings.

The legal battle ahead is going to be fierce and contentious, just as it has been with other gun laws in other states. The Bruen decision will play a critical role in this affair and could possibly make all the difference when it comes to the rights of Illinois residents to carry firearms. However, the outcome of this case will not only impact Second Amendment rights in Illinois, but could also set a precedent for other laws across the nation.