The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is backing plaintiffs in a major constitutional challenge to Illinois’ sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines, asserting the law violates the Second Amendment. A panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is reviewing the case, which originated in the Southern District of Illinois where a federal judge ruled the 2023 law unconstitutional.
Illinois’ ban targets over 170 semi-automatic firearms, including AR-15-style rifles, and magazines exceeding specified capacities. The state claims the measure is necessary to address mass shooting threats. However, plaintiffs argue the ban targets weapons commonly owned for lawful purposes, such as home defense and sport shooting—making it incompatible with Second Amendment protections.
The DOJ’s filing supports this view. It argues that firearms like the AR-15 are widely used and thus protected under the Constitution. “History confirms what the Second Amendment’s text suggests: Possessing weapons for the common defense was a core aspect of the preexisting right to keep and bear arms,” the brief states.
Governor J.B. Pritzker dismissed the DOJ’s position, blaming it on the current presidential administration. He defended the ban by referencing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and claimed it contributed to a reduction in gun violence.
Despite Pritzker’s defense, the DOJ highlighted that mass shootings account for less than 1% of firearm homicides from 1966 to 2023. Legal experts point to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which requires modern gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
In a parallel filing, 35 state’s attorneys from across Illinois urged the court to strike down the law. Their brief emphasized that law-abiding citizens must be allowed to own “commonplace firearms” for self-defense, calling the ban a violation of the constitutional order they are sworn to uphold.
The state of Illinois is expected to file its final briefs soon. Oral arguments will follow. The case may become the next major Second Amendment battle heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
