The state banned the sale and distribution of several models of semiautomatic weapons. The sweeping law covered AR-15s, AK-47s and many other popular sporting rifles. It also banned so-called “large capacity” magazines.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an injunction against the state prohibition and declared AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment. The preliminary injunction was written in Barnett v. Raoul by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn.
The Trump appointee rejected the state’s arguments and sided with gun rights supporters. They argued that Illinois arbitrarily set limits on guns and accessories, but McGlynn found lawmakers denied the fundamental right to self-defense.
The state appealed his decision to the Seventh Circuit, and the three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Illinois and against the injunction.
The two judges who formed the majority recalled that the Heller case determined that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. They also rehashed that Heller found that machine guns were not “bearable” arms and thus not constitutionally protected.
But AR-15s are not machine guns.
However, the appeals court judges said that “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” or auto-sear to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon.”
Only, it is not a fully automatic weapon fitting the congressional definition of a machine gun. And the finding that both use the same ammunition and “deliver the same kinetic energy” is flimsy at best.
In his dissent, Judge Michael P. Brennan emphasized that the Illinois ban on semiautomatic rifles does not pass the strict muster established by Bruen. There is no historical precedent, he argued, to permit Illinois legislators to strip the right to own these common firearms from state residents.
