The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal to the Second Amendment by gun owners, provisionally leaving an Illinois law barring the sale of rapid-fire guns used to carry out mass shootings across the country to stand.

In an unsigned order with no dissent, the judges rejected an emergency appeal asking them to block a local ordinance and the state ban.

While the court’s action isn’t a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it’s a good sign for California and the eight other states

which that

also prohibit the sale of assault weapons.

Usually judges would block a new law if they think it is unconstitutional.

The case was National Assn. for gun rights versus Naperville.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said it would hear arguments on the constitutional issue at the end of June, and the judges may have decided to await the ruling.

The Supreme Court has not ruled directly whether an AR 15 style rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment. In the past, it had rejected 2nd Amendment challenges to similar state and local laws.

But last year, gun rights advocates were applauded when the more conservative court in New York and elsewhere struck down laws that prevented many law-abiding gun owners from carrying a concealed gun in public.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Judge Clarence Thomas said gun restrictions can only be enforced if they are “consistent with the nation’s historic tradition of firearms regulation.”

Less than two weeks after that decision was announced, a gunman armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and 30-round magazines opened fire during an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, Illinois. The gun allowed the gunman to fire 83 rounds in less than a minute, killing 7 and wounding 48.

In response, the City of Naperville and the State of Illinois passed new laws to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Only the sales ban would go into effect immediately, and a gun store owner and several gun rights groups sued to block the measures as violations of the 2nd Amendment.

Gun rights advocates argued that millions of AR-15s have been sold in this country and that the Second Amendment is intended to protect firearms that are “in common use.”

But today’s lightweight, semi-automatic weapons are quite heavy and unwieldy, unlike muskets in use in 1791. means of self-defense.”

A federal judge agreed and allowed the Naperville ban to go into effect.

“The history of firearms regulation establishes that governments have the ability to regulate highly dangerous weapons,” said U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall, and “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines fall under this category.”

The 7th Circuit Court refused to block the enactment of either law while it considered an appeal from the gun owners.