Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 Ban Days After Supreme Court Agreed to Review the Same Question

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 9 that Illinois' ban on AR-15-style rifles and certain high-capacity magazines does not violate the Second Amendment, upholding the law in a case called Barnett v. Raoul.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 30 in Viramontes v. Cook County, a case raising the exact same question: whether bans on AR-15-style rifles violate the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit issued its Barnett decision just nine days later, before the nation's highest court had a chance to weigh in.

What the Ruling Actually Says

The case traces back to a four-day bench trial overseen by U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn, who ruled that Illinois' ban was unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit had previously sent the case back to McGlynn specifically to hold that trial and develop a factual record.

On appeal, the same appellate court rejected McGlynn's factual and legal conclusions. Writing for the panel, Judge Amy St. Eve, joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook, assumed for the sake of argument that AR-15-style rifles qualify as "arms" protected under the first step of the Supreme Court's Bruen framework. But the court concluded the ban survives under the second step, reasoning that it fits within "the principles that underpin the American regulatory tradition" of firearms regulation.

To support that conclusion, the panel leaned heavily on 19th-century regulation of Bowie knives, citing an 1859 Texas case, Cockrum v. State, that described the weapon as an "instrument of almost certain death." Reason's Second Amendment Roundup column, written by attorney and Second Amendment scholar David Kopel, points out a factual wrinkle in that reasoning. Cockrum was decided in 1859, seven years before Reconstruction began in 1866, undercutting the court's framing of it as a "Reconstruction-era" precedent. Kopel also notes that the Texas law in Cockrum criminalized using a Bowie knife in an unlawful homicide, not the peaceable possession of one, making it a weak historical analogue for a blanket ownership ban.

The Broader Legal Landscape

Federal appeals courts are currently split over how to handle AR-15 bans while the Supreme Court decides the issue.

The Ninth Circuit, on July 1, vacated submission in Miller v. Bonta, a case challenging California's similar rifle ban, choosing to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling rather than issue its own decision now. The Third Circuit, weighing New Jersey's ban in Cheeseman and Association of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey, took a different approach on July 6, inviting supplemental briefing in its en banc proceeding to address how two recent Supreme Court decisions, Wolford and Hemani, bear on the case.

If the Third Circuit ultimately strikes down New Jersey's ban, it would hand the Supreme Court a circuit split, with one appeals court ruling the bans unconstitutional against several others, including the Seventh and Ninth, that have upheld them. The Supreme Court also granted cert in a companion case, Grant v. Higgins, challenging Connecticut's comparable ban, meaning the justices will be looking at multiple states' laws together when they take up the issue.

The Case for the Ban, Stated Fairly

Supporters of AR-15 restrictions, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul's office defending the law in this case, argue that semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting high-capacity magazines pose a distinct public safety risk in mass-casualty events, and that states have long regulated particularly dangerous weapons without violating the Second Amendment. That argument rests on the same historical-tradition framework the Supreme Court itself established in District of Columbia v. Heller and later cases, the idea that "dangerous and unusual" weapons can be restricted even though the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

The unresolved legal question is whether AR-15-style rifles, the best-selling rifle platform in the country and standard-issue for many law enforcement agencies, actually meet that "dangerous and unusual" threshold, or whether they are, as Second Amendment litigators argue, in common use for lawful purposes and therefore protected under Heller's core holding.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral argument in Viramontes or Grant v. Higgins. Whatever the justices decide will directly determine the fate of Barnett, Miller v. Bonta, and the New Jersey case now pending before the Third Circuit.

Until then, Illinois' ban stays in effect. Illinois gun owners and dealers remain bound by the Seventh Circuit's ruling, and the broader legal question remains open at the nation's highest court: whether an entire category of the most commonly sold rifle in America can be banned outright.