A federal appeals court upheld Illinois's sweeping assault weapons ban Thursday in a 2-1 decision that reversed a lower court ruling striking down the law — but the dissent from Chief Judge Michael Brennan offered the most pointed Second Amendment defense of the AR-15 any federal judge has written since the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, and the case appears headed for further review.
The Illinois Protect Illinois Communities Act, signed by Governor JB Pritzker in January 2023 in the aftermath of the Highland Park Fourth of July mass shooting, criminalizes the manufacture, sale, purchase, and possession of what the law defines as assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, while allowing those who owned such firearms before the law took effect to continue possessing them under a grandfather clause. The 7th Circuit's majority held that the restrictions are "consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation's tradition of firearm regulation" — the historical tradition test the Supreme Court established in its 2022 Bruen ruling — and reversed a district court that had declared the law unconstitutional. The majority's analysis focused primarily on AR-15s and thirty-round magazines, concluding that both fall within the scope of firearms states may regulate.
"Our Nation's enduring traditions forbid governments from prohibiting firearms commonly owned for self-defense. Because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment. Illinois's ban goes too far and should be enjoined as unconstitutional." — Chief Judge Michael Brennan, dissenting
Brennan's dissent is the heart of the legal case against the Illinois law. Drawing directly on the Supreme Court's Heller and Bruen precedents, Brennan argued that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America — with an estimated 24 to 44 million in civilian circulation — and that the constitutional protection of firearms commonly used for lawful purposes is the core of what the Second Amendment guarantees. A government cannot prohibit what the people have overwhelmingly chosen for self-defense, Brennan wrote, simply by labeling it a weapon of war. The majority's response — that historical tradition permits regulation of weapons with features associated with military use — is precisely the reasoning that Bruen was intended to constrain.
Governor Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, calling it a victory in the fight to end gun violence and reiterating his position that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have no place in Illinois communities. Attorney General Kwame Raoul echoed the sentiment, praising the ruling as a win for public safety. The challengers to the law are widely expected to seek Supreme Court review — and given the current composition of the Court and its explicit Bruen framework, the justices may find the 7th Circuit's historical tradition analysis difficult to reconcile with its prior holdings.
The Illinois assault weapons ban has faced simultaneous challenges in both state and federal court. The 7th Circuit's ruling addresses only the federal constitutional question. Illinois state courts have separately upheld the law against state constitutional challenges. The AR-15 platform — semiautomatic, magazine-fed, intermediate-caliber — has been the best-selling rifle in the United States for more than a decade. The gun is used in hunting, sport shooting, and home defense by millions of Americans, as well as in a small number of high-profile mass shootings that have driven the political push for bans.
Chief Judge Brennan's dissent will outlast the majority opinion in the court of legal history. The Second Amendment does not protect only firearms that a majority of judges find comfortable — it protects the arms the American people have chosen, in their millions, as the tool of their lawful self-defense. An appeals court that upholds the prohibition of the most popular rifle in America by invoking historical tradition is doing exactly what Bruen warned against: working backward from a preferred outcome to a historical justification that fits it. The Supreme Court should take this case and say so plainly.