Background
Six months after a mass shooting at an Independence Day parade in a Chicago suburb killed seven people and wounded dozens, Illinois enacted the Protect Illinois Communities Act in 2023. The Act criminalizes the manufacture, sale, delivery, purchase, and possession of assault weapons (defined to include AR-15s) and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines holding more than ten rounds for rifles). The statute includes a grandfather clause permitting preexisting lawful owners to continue possessing regulated items.
Individual gun owners and firearms businesses sued state and local officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting violations of the Second Amendment. The district court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. However, the Seventh Circuit in Bevis v. City of Naperville (2023) reversed, holding plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on their Second Amendment claims. Following that decision, the district court proceeded to a bench trial and ultimately concluded the Act violated the Second Amendment as applied to assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and assault weapon attachments. The district court enjoined enforcement of the entire Act, prompting defendants to appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s injunction and upheld the Protect Illinois Communities Act. The court assumed arguendo that AR-15s and thirty-round magazines constitute “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022). Moving to Bruen’s second step—whether the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation—the court concluded it was.
The court emphasized that the Second Amendment right, while fundamental, is not unlimited. The nation has a long tradition of restricting weapons deemed particularly dangerous, from pre-Founding era restrictions on carrying certain weapons through modern machine gun bans. The court highlighted Bowie knife regulations from the nineteenth century as a leading example: despite being widely carried by ordinary citizens for lawful purposes including self-defense and hunting, states restricted them based on their dangerousness and capacity for harm. The court noted that every federal circuit court that has addressed assault weapons and large-capacity magazines concluded they can constitutionally be restricted.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ facial challenge, holding that because they failed to substantiate constitutional challenges to every category of weapon regulated by the Act (such as grenade launchers and belt-fed weapons), they could not succeed in enjoining the entire statute. The court proceeded to analyze only the specific items most thoroughly briefed: AR-15s as representative assault weapons and thirty-round rifle magazines.
Key Takeaways
- The Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but that right is not absolute and allows for regulations consistent with historical tradition.
- Under Bruen, courts need not find close founding-era comparators to sustain modern firearm restrictions; legislative restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons throughout history provide sufficient justification.
- AR-15s and large-capacity magazines can constitutionally be restricted despite being in common civilian use, because they fit within the historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons.
- Facial challenges to firearm regulations face a demanding standard and fail when plaintiffs do not address every item regulated by the statute.
- All federal circuit courts to address the issue have now agreed that assault weapons and large-capacity magazine bans are constitutionally permissible.
Why It Matters
This decision provides significant validation for state and local firearms regulations following the Supreme Court’s shift toward historical analysis in Bruen. By aligning with every other federal circuit court and upholding a comprehensive assault weapons ban, the Seventh Circuit signals that the Second Amendment—while protecting individual rights—does not prevent legislatures from addressing public safety concerns through restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons. The decision rejects the argument that common civilian use of a weapon precludes regulation when that weapon’s capacity for lethality exceeds that of weapons available at the founding or when historical analogues support restriction.
For practitioners and policymakers, the decision clarifies that the Bruen framework permits careful historical analysis rather than requiring modern-day functional comparisons to founding-era weapons. It also establishes that the Seventh Circuit will apply rigorous scrutiny to facial challenges, potentially limiting broad attacks on firearm regulations. The unanimity across circuits on this issue may discourage further Supreme Court review and provides considerable certainty for the constitutionality of assault weapons and large-capacity magazine restrictions going forward.