Seven Circuit of Appeals Rules That AR-15s Are Not Protected by the Second Amendment
Jose Nino
|
On November 3, 2023, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reverse an injunction against Illinois’ “assault weapons” prohibition, ruling that AR-15s are not safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
US District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, who former President Donald Trump appointed, issued the preliminary injunction.
The preliminary injunction was issued in Barnett v. Raoul by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, a Donald Trump appointee.
McGlynn’s decision was subsequently appealed to the Seventh Circuit, where a three-judge panel ruled against the injunction by a 2 to 1 margin.
Frank Easterbook (appointed by Ronald Reagan), Dianne P. Wood (appointed by Bill Clinton), and Michael P. Brennan (appointed by Donald Trump).
Easterbrook and Wood issued the majority ruling in this decision. They highlighted that Heller (2008) ruled, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
They continued by noting that in the Heller decision, the US Supreme determined that machine guns did not fall under the protection the Second Amendment because they were not “bearable” arms, and that is “because they can be dedicated exclusively to military use.”
Easterbrook and Wood subsequently concentrated on similarities they discovered between AR-15s and M16. The latter rifle can be fired in full-auto or three-round burst modes. The judges wrote:
The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easy it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a “bump stock” (as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas event had done) or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon. In a decision addressing a ban on bump stocks enacted by the Maryland legislature, another federal court found that bump-stock devices enable “rates of fire between 400 to 800 rounds per minute.”
They justices also called attention to how both rifles use the same ammunition and “deliver the same kinetic energy.”
Judge Brennan issued a dissenting opinion from the majority decision, emphasizing that the Illinois “assault weapons” prohibition fails the test set forth by the Bruen Supreme Court decision (2022) because there is no historical precedent in the American tradition for this prohibition.
Brennan wrote in his opinion: “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.”
The case in question is Bevis v. City of Naperville, No. 23-1353 in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Illinois is one of the most anti-gun states in the country as seen by its 39th place ranking according to Guns & Ammo magazine’s best states for gun owners rankings. As a result, gun owners in Illinois will have to turn to the courts or even nullify state-level gun control laws at the city and county level to roll back gun control in this kind of anti-gun environment.
Share: