Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 Ban Days After Supreme Court Takes Up Same Fight

The Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’ AR-15 ban just days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major challenge to semiautomatic rifle bans. IMG Travis Pike

The Seventh Circuit just upheld Illinois’ ban on AR-15s and standard 30-round magazines, but the ruling may have a very short shelf life.

In Barnett v. Raoul, a divided panel reversed Judge Stephen McGlynn’s permanent injunction against Illinois’ so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act, allowing the state to keep enforcing its ban on America’s most popular rifle. The decision landed just days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two cases that ask whether the Second Amendment protects common semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15.

In other words, the Seventh Circuit just doubled down on Bevis while SCOTUS is already preparing to review the same fight.

AmmoLand readers have been following this fight for years. Barnett was never just another Illinois gun-ban case. It has long been one of the cases that could force the Supreme Court to finally confront whether the Second Amendment protects modern semiautomatic rifles. Justice Clarence Thomas previously warned that if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allowed Illinois to ban “America’s most common civilian rifle,” the Supreme Court “can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.” AmmoLand covered that warning when the case moved toward trial as well as the oral arguments last September.

Well, here we are with a decision and it is a decidedly anti-gun decision from the Seventh Circuit.

Court Leans On Bevis And Rahimi

The majority opinion, written by Judge Amy St. Eve and joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook, leaned heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s earlier Bevis ruling. In Bevis, the court claimed AR-15s are close enough to M16s to fall outside full Second Amendment protection, even though AR-15s fire only one round per trigger pull and are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.

After a full trial record in Barnett, the district court found that ordinary citizens choose AR-15s, standard magazines, and related accessories for self-defense. The district court also found that AR-15s are materially different from military-issued M16 rifles because AR-15s are semiautomatic, while M16s are capable of automatic or burst fire.The Seventh Circuit was not interested.

Instead, the majority said Rahimi supported its prior approach because the Supreme Court rejected the idea that modern gun laws need exact historical twins. The court also pointed to what it described as a unanimous circuit consensus, noting that other federal appeals courts to reach similar AR-15 or magazine-ban questions have upheld them.

That sounds impressive until you look at the list. The First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits are not exactly known as Second Amendment strongholds.

Calling that a national constitutional consensus is like polling a gun-control conference and declaring the debate over. The more honest framing is that anti-gun circuits have built a wall around AR-15 bans, and now the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether that wall stands or falls.

Viramontes Changes Everything

That is what makes the timing of Barnett so important. On June 30, 2026, just days before this Seventh Circuit ruling, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins. The Court allotted one hour of oral argument, and the question presented asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes, including “the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.”

In other words, the Seventh Circuit is doubling down on Bevis while the Supreme Court is already preparing to take up the same core issue.

The majority also cited Wolford v. Lopez, but it did not seriously grapple with what Wolford demands. Wolford made clear that courts evaluating historical analogues must look at how many jurisdictions adopted them, whether they were well accepted, and whether they are similar in both “how” and “why.” That is a much tighter inquiry than grabbing old Bowie knife restrictions and stretching them into a permission slip for banning commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Brennan’s Dissent Gets It Right

Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent cut straight through the noise.

“Illinois has banned the best-selling rifle in America and its standard magazine,” Brennan wrote. He warned that after “perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date,” the court simply repeated its Bevis error.

Brennan got it right. Heller protects arms commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The AR-15 clears that bar with room to spare. Courts do not get to relabel a commonly owned rifle as too dangerous simply because politicians and gun-control lawyers do not like it.

For Illinois gun owners, Barnett is a loss. But it may also be the Seventh Circuit’s final defense of Bevis before the Supreme Court finally answers the AR-15 question directly.

The Seventh Circuit has made its position clear. Now it is SCOTUS’ turn.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/vL86Gp7
via IFTTT

Soros Money Shows Gun Owners Must Not Dismiss Blue Threat to Texas

Texas gun owners should not assume the Lone Star State’s pro-gun reputation will protect them from a well-funded political push against the Second Amendment. IMG Jim Grant

“Soros Continues To Pump Money into Efforts to Turn Texas Blue,” Texas Scorecard reported Wednesday. “According to Transparency USA, Soros has already funneled over $1 million into the Texas Majority PAC. The federal American Bridge PAC, long aligned with Soros, has contributed $7.57 million to the Texas Majority PAC… The Texas Majority PAC exists to turn Texas into a blue state by electing Democrats to statewide offices.”

“Don’t mess with Texas,” some may scoff, relying on the state’s “Come and take it” reputation on guns formed from Hollywood fiction. In actuality, Texas passed “An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms” back in 1870, essentially banning the carrying of arms in public places.

And don’t forget that a century later, Texas Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968.

In 1993, Democrat Gov. Ann Richards vetoed a concealed carry permit bill.  It was finally signed into law by George W. Bush in 1995, marking “the first time since frontier days.”

Still, the “Wild West” mythos has been perpetuated, and not just by American gun owners, but by opinion influencers around the world.

“I can’t recall the exact number of times I have eaten a meal in the immediate company of a man, or men, with shooters on their hips in plain view. For me, I am always equal parts spellbound and queasy,” a New Zealand “journalist” wrote back in 2010. “Spellbound because there is something so fundamentally cowboy and western about it. Guns, freedom, country music and the Second Amendment. It is Texas after all. Yeeha!”

It’s true: She couldn’t recall the exact number of times. That’s because Texas, at the time, still outlawed open carry. She made it up – and rather than apologize, the paper she wrote for doubled down with changed stories, insults, denials, and lies.

It wasn’t until 2016 that open carry of holstered handguns became legal for License to Carry holders, and permitless carry,  allowing adults to carry handguns openly or concealed, wasn’t enacted until 2021.

The bottom line is just because it’s Texas hardly means that “gun rights” can be taken for granted. And we’ve seen plenty of Texas Democrats making it clear that they can’t wait to eviscerate laws recognizing the right to keep and bear arms just as soon they think they have the power to make it happen, from Beto O’Rourke’s  “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” to Sheila “Heavy as 10 boxes” Jackson Lee. And now, of course, Giffords/Everytown-endorsee James Talarico is vying for the Senate seat of outgoing Republican disappointment John Cornyn.

“Texas Gun Rights is warning that Texas Majority PAC-backed candidates, including James Talarico, Gina Hinojosa, Vikki Goodwin, Nathan Johnson, Sarah Eckhardt, Jon Rosenthal, and Clayton Tucker, support radical anti-gun policies such as red flag laws, raising the age to purchase guns, gun-registration schemes, and the outright banning and seizure of common semi-automatic firearms,” Texas Scorecard warns. And, of course, those aren’t the only radical cultural transformations Democrats intend to impose should they attain the power to force them.

Talarico’s in “a dead heat” against NRA/Gun Owners of America-endorsed Ken Paxton. And what happens in Texas will be a pretty good indicator of what happens in other states, especially noting “The Soros family has poured a staggering $103 million nationwide into the 2026 election cycle so far.”

Gun owners — and not just in Texas — know what they must do. They still have options the heroes of the Alamo did not. Will they use them?

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

from https://ift.tt/tGVLdRj
via IFTTT

The Uncomfortable Truth for Antis as Semi-Auto Rifle Cases Loom at SCOTUS

A single paragraph in a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on how two gun ban cases already accepted by the high court could guide the legal arguments. IMG Jim Grant

Buried 18 pages into a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Calce v. City of New York is an uncomfortable truth the gun prohibition lobby and its congressional and legislative allies want to avoid as two cases challenging bans on modern semiautomatic rifles are on the court’s docket for the term beginning in October.

By no small coincidence, both of those cases were also brought by SAF, and the outcome will almost certainly bring its sister organization—the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—out of the shadows, where it has dwelt for too long, and into the spotlight. More about this in a moment.

SAF’s Calce Petition Puts the Burden Back Where It Belongs

In SAF’s petition for Supreme Court review of New York City’s “recalcitrant” behavior regarding its stubborn refusal to obey the spirit, if not the letter, of the high court’s previous ruling on stun guns in a 2016 case known as Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which the Court rejected lower court rulings that said stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead, the Court reminded the nation that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

And this brings the saga around to Page 18 of the Calce petition, where it states, “The Second Amendment enshrines a right to keep and bear arms free from the interference of the government, outside of narrow, long-recognized exceptions. It makes no more sense, in this context, to permit the government to ban whatever it wants and require rights holders to come to court and prove the arm they wish to possess is worth the protection, than it would to allow the government to place a prior restraint on publishing unless a writer can affirmatively prove his content is not defamatory or obscene.”

Viramontes and Grant Put Semi-Auto Bans in the Crosshairs

Whether upcoming motions and/or amicus briefs expected in the dual gun ban cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—quote that passage, it is now part of the bedrock supporting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the definition of which goes beyond firearms, and by the time the high court convenes Oct. 4—the first Monday of the month—that paragraph will have been widely read.

Of particular importance to the CCRKBA is the fact that Grant v. Higgins is a case that has been fought and pursued over the past five years by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. CCDL has been the lead organizational plaintiff in the Grant case since its inception, and is a CCRKBA state affiliate, and now SAF’s ally in this case.

Leading this legal effort is CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan, who is also CCDL president. These facts combined literally bring the Committee into the battle.

In a recent CCRKBA statement to the media about her direct involvement in the Grant case, she said, “Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.”

As noted by CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a recent news release, “Because CCDL is a plaintiff in the Grant case challenging Connecticut’s rifle ban, it essentially puts the Committee on the playing field. Frankly, we wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Meanwhile, joining SAF in the Viramontes case is the Firearms Policy Coalition. The significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to take both Viramontes and Grant, with the likelihood they will be consolidated, cannot be overstated.

A 2027 Ruling Could Reshape Gun Bans Nationwide

As Gottlieb mentioned in a chat with AmmoLand, Grant deals with a local government ban while Viramontes addresses a statewide ban. The ruling, which will likely arrive in June 2027, could be a blockbuster because it will literally cover the bases.

After all, some observers have hinted, the Court would not take two such cases if it intended merely to preserve the status quo.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a SAF news release. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

The outcome may not be for all the marbles, but it could easily come close to filling the legal glass jar.

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/XLybeaT
via IFTTT

Mark Smith Was Right: Supreme Court’s AR-15 Move Was Strategy, Not a Snub

“Several weeks ago, I explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s silence on the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle question did not demonstrate hostility to the Second Amendment, but rather constituted a rationing of the high Court’s docket space. Now the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in two consolidated AR-15 cases proves my point: the Court’s decision to push the AR-15 question to the Fall of 2026 was deliberate all along. Here are my receipts.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two consolidated AR-15 cases — Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 25-238, out of the Seventh Circuit, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, out of the Second Circuit — setting up oral argument in the October 2026 with a decision expected by June 2027. I am not revisiting that news here. I am writing this because I told you it was coming, in print, more than a month before it happened, and I explained then exactly why the Court’s silence on the AR-15 question earlier this Term was strategy rather than retreat. My prediction has now been vindicated, and the reasoning behind it tells you more about how this case will be decided than the bare fact of the grant does.

What I Wrote in Early May 2026

In an AmmoLand article published in May, I addressed a frequent question: why had SCOTUS passed over an AR-15 case this Term? I wrote then: “The Supreme Court did not skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect. They ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.”

I made the same point in a video a few weeks later, walking through the reasoning in more detail: “I’m often asked why the Supreme Court did not take an AR-15 or large-capacity-magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Supreme Court is dodging the Second Amendment, but there is another, more basic explanation. The justices have one of the most packed precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.”

A Court Docket Rationed, Not Refused

The Supreme Court decides roughly seventy cases a year on the merits, drawn from every corner of federal and constitutional law — criminal procedure, intellectual property, environmental regulation, tax issues, tort questions, ERISA, the death penalty, civil rights and more. In a single SCOTUS Term, the Court can typically absorb only one or two cases in any given subject area, and this Term’s docket was extraordinarily heavy with high-stakes executive-power, tariff, and immigration disputes. That left room for two Second Amendment cases at most.

And the Court used its 2A allotment on Wolford v. Lopez, the Hawaii “vampire rule” no-carry default carry case, and United States v. Hemani, the drug-user firearm-prohibition case brought at the U.S. Solicitor General’s own urging.

An AR-15 case would have been a third, and that would have been too much given this Term’s politically-charged docket. Chief Justice Roberts manages the docket the way any institution with finite political capital manages risk: he spends it deliberately. Reading that restraint as hostility to the Second Amendment mistook institutional bandwidth for institutional intent.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Chessboard

The clearest previous signal came from Justice Kavanaugh, whose forecasting record on this Court is difficult to ignore. Roughly eighteen months before the Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), he had already indicated publicly that the Court needed to resolve whether the right to bear arms extended to public carry — and it did, in Bruen.

Justice Kavanaugh had since signaled that the AR-15 question would come before the Court “in the next term or two.” That is precisely the sequence that has now unfolded: the cert grants in Viramontes and Grant lands squarely in the October 2026 Term, exactly the window Kavanaugh identified.

I also read the Court’s decision this Term in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (U.S. June 25, 2026), a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Alito, as a preview: its treatment of the Second Amendment’s text against the historical record reads like a dress rehearsal for the Court’s AR-15 analysis to come.

WW II Island Hopping Metaphor and SCOTUS

The same order list that granted certiorari in the rifle cases held two magazine-ban petitions — Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198, out of California, and State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc., No. 25-153. That sequencing is deliberate, and I view it as good news rather than a snub. Litigating an AR-15 ban and a magazine ban before the Court in the same Term risks handing a justice inclined toward the middle the room needed to split the difference — striking the rifle ban while upholding the magazine restriction. Keeping the cases apart forecloses that compromise.

Relatedly, this incremental approach to restoring our Second Amendment rights mirrors America’s World War II island-hopping campaign in the Pacific theatre: resolve the semiautomatic-rifle question first, let the reasoning in Viramontes and Grant settle (reaffirm) the governing legal framework, and then bring the magazine and suppressor questions forward on a foundation the Court has already built. I expect the Court to hold Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns for roughly a year and then remand them via a GVR in light of the AR-15 decision, not deny them outright.

The Record So Far Supports the Bet

The anti-gun lobby has poured enormous resources into defending assault-weapons bans precisely because the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. A ruling that the Second Amendment protects it would be the most significant restoration of the right to keep and bear arms since Heller itself, and it would supply lower courts with language they can use against the pending magazine and suppressor bans in due course. The Supreme Court’s caution earlier over the last year or two was not evasion. It was preparation, and the timing has run exactly the course I described weeks before the cert grants.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/Orem4yf
via IFTTT

Virginia Court Blocks Spanberger’s Semi-Auto Rifle and Magazine Ban Statewide

Virginia gun owners scored another major Second Amendment win after a court blocked enforcement of Spanberger’s semi-auto rifle and magazine ban statewide. IMG Tim Potter

A Washington County judge has issued a universal injunction—meaning a court order that prohibits enforcement statewide—against Virginia’s bans on so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines, marking another setback for the anti-gun movement in the state.

This new injunction, in the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed case Santolla v. Katz, is scheduled to take effect on July 21, 2026. It forbids any law enforcement agency or Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia from enforcing laws that prohibit specific firearms, often referred to as “assault firearms,” and large-capacity magazines.

Statewide Injunction Stops Virginia’s New Gun Ban

This is the second injunction blocking the law, following a similar ruling by a judge in Lancaster County. Most people believed the first injunction blocked the law entirely, but some federal firearms licensees (FFLs) continued to follow it because it named only the state police.

“The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines,” John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said. “The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.”

Judge Rejects Patchwork Enforcement Scheme

The July 21 effective date was set to give local law enforcement and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys time to be notified. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones had sought to limit the scope of the injunction to allow the law to take effect. The judge in the case, Jeffrey L. Campbell, pointed out that a limited injunction would not prevent harm to the plaintiffs.

The judge wrote: “Should this Court’s prior ruling be limited only to party defendants herein, a person could freely transport an AR-15 through Washington County without fear of running afoul of the law. However, if they crossed the county line into Grayson County, then, arguably, they could be charged for the same conduct since the coverage of the injunction would not extend therein. This Court has concerns about the treacherous patchwork of enforcement that this may lead to for the Plaintiffs and law enforcement alike and whether this ruling should be amplified to include, universally, all of the Commonwealth and law enforcement agencies within the same.”

The NRA called out Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger for trying to infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of Virginians in a statement following the victory.

“The NRA’s world-class legal team delivered a clear, powerful argument demonstrating that Abigail Spanberger’s gun ban is a blatant constitutional infringement on the rights of law-abiding Virginians,” said Commerford. “Our strategy has now secured a comprehensive statewide injunction, blocking enforcement of this law until the courts hear our full case. This is a major victory, but our mission is not complete. We will not rest until this unconstitutional measure is struck down in its entirety and added to the long list of gun control laws the NRA has removed from the books for good.”

Second Injunction Adds Pressure On Commonwealth

This is the second loss this week for the Commonwealth’s anti-gun plans. Earlier this week, the state tried to consolidate all the challenges to the “assault firearms” and magazine ban into a single case. The Supreme Court of Virginia rejected the move, meaning the Commonwealth will have to defend the law in multiple jurisdictions. These include challenges in both state and federal courts.

Other plaintiffs include Gun Owners of America (GOA), Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

The injunction is set to remain in effect through July 2027. By that time, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to have issued rulings in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which many believe will declare all “assault weapons” bans unconstitutional.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/zaIscTC
via IFTTT

Third Circuit Orders New Briefing As New Jersey’s AR-15 Ban Defense Starts To Crack

The Third Circuit just put New Jersey’s AR-15 and magazine ban case back under the spotlight.

In a July 6 order entered at the direction of the en banc court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invited the parties in the consolidated Cheeseman / ANJRPC challenge to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact, if any, of the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. Those briefs are due July 10 at noon, are limited to 1,500 words, and the court made clear that extensions will not be granted absent truly exceptional circumstances.

That is a major development in one of the most important Second Amendment cases currently pending in the lower courts.

Why Wolford And Hemani Matter To New Jersey’s Gun Ban

As AmmoLand previously reported, Wolford may have punched a serious hole in New Jersey’s defense of its so-called “assault firearms” ban. The key issue is whether New Jersey can force gun owners to prove AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles are protected before the state has to justify banning them. Wolford strengthens the argument that the first question is simpler: does the law regulate “Arms”? If so, the Second Amendment is already in play.

That is a problem for Trenton.

New Jersey is not regulating some obscure device. It is banning rifles owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, training, and competition. It is also restricting magazines that gun owners correctly call standard capacity, not “large capacity.”

Mark Smith Predicts A Major Second Amendment Ruling

Mark Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner and a constitutional attorney, called the Third Circuit’s new order “a huge order” and said it may reveal where the court is heading. Smith believes the court “fully intends to move forward” instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to decide the newly granted AR-15 cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

On June 30, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes and Grant, consolidating the cases to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. That case is now the big one. Every anti-gun state with a rifle ban is watching it. Every gun owner should be watching it too.

But the Third Circuit may not be waiting.

The Ninth Circuit recently vacated submission in Miller v. Bonta, the California “assault weapon” case, pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Viramontes and Grant. The Ninth Circuit effectively hit pause. Smith contrasted that with the Third Circuit’s fast briefing order and argued the Third Circuit may be preparing a “very powerful pro-second amendment ruling.”

At minimum, the order shows the en banc Third Circuit is actively working the case and wants the parties to explain how the Supreme Court’s newest gun-rights rulings affect New Jersey’s ban. If the court intended to shelve the case completely until SCOTUS acts, it would not need urgent briefing on Wolford and Hemani.

A Pro-2A Ruling Could Shape The Supreme Court’s AR-15 Case

For gun owners, the stakes are enormous. A pro-Second Amendment Third Circuit ruling would immediately change the legal battlefield. It could create or deepen a circuit split. It could give the Supreme Court a serious originalist roadmap before it hears Viramontes and Grant. And it could put New Jersey’s gun-control machine on defense at the worst possible time for the anti-gun lobby.

Wolford reinforced that courts cannot smuggle gun-control assumptions into the first step of the analysis. Hemani again reminded the government that it bears the burden when it tries to disarm the people.

Now the Third Circuit has asked what those decisions mean for New Jersey’s AR-15 and magazine bans.

The answer should be obvious: commonly owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines are protected by the Second Amendment.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/xdcNIDG
via IFTTT

Supreme Court AR-15 Case May Put Magazine Bans in the Crosshairs

The Supreme Court’s review of AR-15-platform rifle bans could have consequences for other Second Amendment fights, including magazine restrictions. IMG Jim Grant

As the 2025 session came to an end, the Supreme Court gave us a lovely parting gift: It agreed to review Grant v. Higgins* (25-566), Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, and Cutberto Viramontes v. Cook County (25-238), Cook County, Illinois’ version. In its grant of certiorari, the court rolled Grant into Viramontes with arguments to be scheduled for the Fall 2026 Term.

While there are lots of issues raised by Grant and Viramontes, the Supreme Court limited consideration to a single question: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”

Presumably, the court’s benchmark will be the Heller standard: In common use for lawful purposes, a test the AR-15 will easily pass with flying colors.

Gun rights and Second Amendment advocates were delighted the court, after years of kicking this particular can to a future term. However, there was a lot of disappointment because the court punted magazine bans again.

The Magazine Ban Question SCOTUS Didn’t Take

This is frustrating; Duncan v. Bonta was originally filed in 2017, and this is the second time it has been before the Supreme Court. The court GVR’d the case in 2022, and it went through the entire Ninth Circuit appellate process for a second time.

But this time, there’s a twist that could resolve the issue sooner rather than later.

Connecticut General Statute § 53-202a extends well beyond evil black rifles. It also includes the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines.

The Heller standard could be applied here, as well, but it isn’t needed. If AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms are covered by the Second Amendment, so are their parts – including magazines.

Magazines Are Not Optional Accessories

One of the silliest debates in gun control is whether detachable magazines are optional accessories or necessary components. Accessory adherents stake their argument on the ability use magazines of different capacities without otherwise affecting the gun. The design of the AR-15 platform rebuts this claim because the user can easily change the rifle’s caliber from .223 Remington to the slightly more powerful .300 AAC Blackout by exchanging the barrel.

Haven’t seen anyone claim the barrel is an accessory.

Since the Kalthoff Repeater was developed in 1630, repeating firearms have always required a magazine, cylinder, or similar mechanism. This is just as true for a bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action rifle as it is for an automatic or semiautomatic rifle.

Even the most ignorant, diehard gun-grabber will have to admit a repeating firearm isn’t really a repeater if there’s not a fresh cartridge on hand. This means a magazine is a critical component for a repeating firearm to operate as intended by the manufacturer.

The objection that a rifle could be manually loaded with one shot at a time is frivolous. It misses the point. A repeating firearm was designed and manufactured to fire multiple shots without reloading and was purchased by the consumer at least in part for that reason.

What sets automatic and semiautomatic firearms apart is the fact they are self-loading. They require no mechanical action by the user. A round is fired and the gun utilizes recoil or the gases created by the burning powder to eject the spent cartridge, strip a fresh round from the magazine, and reload the chamber.

Remington’s first semi-auto long gun was the 1906 Autoloading Rifle, which debuted a year after the Winchester Model 1905, the first semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine. The Winchester Model 1907 was the first to offer a magazine holding more than ten rounds.

The first ban on ‘large-capacity magazines’ was enacted in New Jersey in 1990, 83 years after the Winchester Model 1907 was introduced.

How does all of this work to justify adding magazine restrictions to the Supreme Court’s consideration of Viramontes? By recognizing magazines as necessary parts of a firearm, they automatically become weapons for Second Amendment purposes.

The AR-15, M1 Carbine, and Standard-Capacity Magazines

The Colt AR-15 Sporter went on sale in 1964. The standard (and original) magazine held 20 rounds. Colt did offer an insertable spacer that reduced capacity to five rounds to comply with state hunting laws.

The first AK-47 variant in the U.S. was the Valmet M62/S imported by Interarms beginning in 1969. Its sole magazine held 30 rounds.

Of course, there was always the World War II M1 Carbine sold as surplus in the hundreds of thousands by the U.S. government beginning around 1960. There was a choice of two magazines holding either 15 or 30 cartridges.

It’s important to remember both the Colt AR-15 and the Valmet M62/S were intended for sales into the civilian market.

So there is a solid link between what the ban fans call assault rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds.

The Rifle Case May Reach Further Than Rifle Bans

There has never been a verifiable reason for a ten-round limit. It’s been justified as based on an estimate the number of rounds fired in a citizen engagement. Using the same standard, police should be limited to carrying a total of 32 rounds instead of the 45 to 51 carried by uniformed patrol officers.

Former U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez questioned the ten-round limit’s provenance when he heard Duncan v. Bonta for the second time in September 2023. In his ruling, he found California’s defense “unpersuasive.”

It may seem like I took a long, roundabout way to get here but it’s the details underlying the reasoning. And it could reshape Duncan and Gator’s, or give the Court a reason to send them back for reconsideration.

*Originally filed as Grant v. Rovella

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/LNzYEjl
via IFTTT