The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the statewide ban on assault weapons.

The high court issued a decision on Friday morning, overturning a lower court’s ruling that the ban on special legislation does not constitute a denial of equal protection and is not unconstitutional.

Governor J.B. Pritzker said he was “pleased” with the ruling on Friday, as it is a win for families, survivors, and advocates who support legislation that preserves the nation’s countless lives by combatting gun violence.

He stated that this is a statement that a commonsense gun reform law is necessary to keep our worship places, parks, malls, schools, and streets safe for Illinoisans attending the Fourth of July Parade or heading to any corner of our state.

Governor Pritzker signed the Act to Protect Illinois Communities, also known as the Illinois Communities Protect Act, in January, which was immediately followed by multiple challenges and legal promises from sheriffs in counties around Illinois who said they wouldn’t enforce the ban.

In the case brought by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, the Supreme Court of the state was tasked with deciding whether or not they agreed with the judge downstate who ruled that Illinois’ ban on assault weapons violated the requirement of protection on behalf of the gun.

The law bans the sale of hundreds of different types of weapons in Illinois, as they are considered assault weapons. Those who already own such firearms will be allowed to keep them, but they will be required to register them with the state before January 2024.

Learn More: Which Firearms Are Included in Illinois’ Assault Weapons Prohibition?

The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that all individuals must be treated equally, as mandated by the clause that allows those who previously owned AR-15 guns to be grandfathered in, even if it breaks the ban.

The court did not agree.

The court stated in its ruling that the laws treat individuals who already own assault weapons and LCMs in the same way as those who are exempted from the law,” the court stated. “Plaintiffs are allowed to keep them but are not allowed to obtain more, which aligns with the limitations imposed on those who are exempted under the Act,” the court stated in its ruling.

On Friday, the court observed that the plaintiffs did not include such a allegation in their complaint, whereas they also contended that the law infringes upon the safeguards of the second amendment.

An opportunity to respond to that theory in the circuit court, would undermine the adversarial process and the system of appellate jurisdiction, and could potentially harm the opposing party who was not given a chance to counter that theory in the circuit court.

Despite the ruling on Friday, the prohibition still encounters legal obstacles in federal court.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul argued in support of the law, stating that there is a logical reason for restricting the use and sale of these firearms, as it can prevent Illinois residents from losing their lives due to them.

“I do not, and I do not believe the legislature does either,” he stated after presenting arguments before the supreme court in May. “Are you advocating for an increase in individuals obtaining such firearms and participating in processions, leading to the occurrence of mass shootings?”

White Justice Lisa Holder wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that the unconstitutional ban finds herself that citizens of law-abiding have the right to possess firearms and arm themselves to protect their homes, families, and themselves, and must not be infringed upon.

In her disagreement, she expressed, ‘the citizens of Illinois merit nothing inferior to the procedural demands of the constitution being adhered to by their chosen representatives and senators,’ when, as in this instance, the efforts of the legislature directly affect a crucial entitlement, which this court has declared the entitlement to possess and carry firearms is.