Federal Appeals Court Rules AR-15s Not Protected by Second Amendment

Dissenting judge indicates the Illinois ban would not withstand Supreme Court precedent.

In a significant ruling on Friday, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the State of Illinois' ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, which had been challenged in a consolidation of six related lawsuits.

Earlier this year, the Protect Illinois Communities Act was signed into law by Democrat Governor JB Pritzker after state lawmakers passed the legislation in response to a mass shooting during a July 4th parade in Highland Park.

This tragedy resulted in seven deaths and 36 injuries, leaving a young boy orphaned.

The law prohibits the sale of specific models and brands of rifles, handguns, .50-caliber firearms, various attachments, and rapid-firing devices.

It further limits magazine capacities to no more than 10 rounds for rifles and 15 for handguns and requires that current owners of the now-banned firearms register them with the Illinois State Police.

However, the law's constitutionality was initially challenged by U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn in East St. Louis, who issued a 29-page injunction stating the ban was unconstitutional, asserting, "Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific? The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is 'likely no.'"

On May 4, the appeals court halted Judge McGlynn's injunction, and the panel, consisting of Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Diane P. Wood, and Michael B. Brennan, maintained the ban in a 2-1 decision.

They reasoned that, akin to other fundamental rights, the Second Amendment has its boundaries.

The majority opinion emphasized, "[A]s we know from long experience with other fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech, the right peaceably to assemble, the right to vote, and the right to free exercise of religion, even the most important personal freedoms have their limits."

The crux of the panel's decision rested on whether the banned firearms are categorized as 'military' and therefore not covered by the Second Amendment.

Drawing on Supreme Court decisions in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and others, the appeals court concluded that the banned weapons likely fell under the military category and upheld the state's regulation.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Brennan sharply critiqued the ruling, claiming the Illinois ban "dramatically redefines the legality of firearms and magazines in Illinois," which could impact the "ownership, possession, and use for self-defense of many of the most commonly-owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, rifles, and magazines."

Gun rights advocates have expressed discontent with the ban, highlighting the use of semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 for home defense, sport shooting, and hunting.

They argue that such weapons, widely owned in the U.S., should be considered under the Supreme Court's protection for guns in "common use."

Judge Brennan's dissent emphasizes this point, indicating that the Illinois ban would not withstand the Supreme Court's precedent set in Bruen, which highlighted the absence of historical precedent for such restrictions in American tradition.

He argues, “Because the banned firearms and magazines warrant constitutional protection, and the government parties have failed to meet their burden to show that their bans are part of the history and tradition of firearms regulation, preliminary injunctions are justified against enforcement of the challenged laws.”