The Department of Justice has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals supporting plaintiffs in a case challenging the “Protect Illinois Community Act,” which bans so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines,” asserting the ban violates the Second Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.
The brief, submitted by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle, contends the AR-15 and similar rifles are “commonly owned” and used by private citizens for all kinds of legitimate purposes. Same goes for the banned magazines.
The case is known as Barnett v. Raoul.
In its brief, the DOJ Civil Rights Division notes, “Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other’ constitutional rights.
“Regrettably, not every State got the message,” the brief adds. “Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban. In doing so, Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
The 34-page brief explains that the term “arms” used in the Second Amendment “describes the category of weapons that an individual would wear, bear, or carry for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with other people.” The amendment “protects not ‘only those arms in existence in the 18th century,’ but also ‘those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’”
The DOJ brief, in what can clearly be considered a significant departure from previous administration practices, states clearly that, “the AR-15 is in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, including for self-defense, target shooting, and public defense.”
“Once an arm is in common use,” the DOJ says, “its mere possession cannot ‘be infringed or forbidden by the Legislature.’”
According to the National Rifle Association, which is a participant in the case, notes in a statement to the media, “On April 28, 2023, the District Court preliminarily enjoined the bans, holding that they likely violate the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, however, holding on November 3, 2023, that the bans likely do not violate the Second Amendment. After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case at such an early stage in the litigation, the case returned to the District Court. Then on November 9, 2024, the District Court again ruled in our favor, finding that the bans violate the Second Amendment and entering a permanent injunction preventing their enforcement. The state subsequently appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which stayed the District Court’s ruling while it decides the case.”
The submission of this amicus brief underscores earlier announcements by the Justice Department that the Trump administration is serious about its pledge to “protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.” Likewise, Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s instruction to the DOJ means what it says: The Department will “use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”
So, the DOJ is serious when it argues, “the Second Amendment protects firearm attachments that are useful to the exercise of the right, including magazines, suppressors, and other firearm attachments that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons.”
This is significant language which cannot be overemphasized. This marks a dramatic shift, especially from the Biden administration, which many believe was determined to erode the Second Amendment. Gun rights organizations considered the Biden DOJ, under the leadership of former Attorney General Merrick Garland, to be at war with the firearms community, especially the gun industry.
That war appears to be over, at least while Trump is in office and Republicans control Capitol Hill.
“Because the Act bans the possession of magazines and other firearm attachments that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons, it violates the Second Amendment,” the brief states.
