DOJ Sides With Gun Rights in Major 2A Case – This Is Not Your Father’s DOJ

In a shocking but welcome turn of events, the U.S. Department of Justice has officially sided with gun owners in a major Second Amendment case, Barnett v. Raoul, now before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As highlighted by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, this isn’t happening at the Supreme Court level – this is the DOJ getting involved early, at the appellate stage, and in strong support of lawful firearm owners in Illinois. Kirk called it “a huge day for your inalienable rights,” and honestly, he’s not exaggerating.

The DOJ’s Three Bold Claims

According to the DOJ’s amicus brief, this is a straightforward Second Amendment case, and Illinois got it wrong. They argue three main points:

1. The Protect Illinois Communities Act bans AR-15s and other firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens.
2. The state cannot ban weapons just because they are considered “militaristic.”
3. The Act also unconstitutionally bans magazines and attachments that are widely used and essential for lawful gun ownership.

This is a hard pivot from what we’ve come to expect from the DOJ. As Braden Langley from Langley Outdoors Academy put it, “They just said to the entire world AR-15 bans are unconstitutional.” That alone is a massive shift in tone and policy.

“Common Use” Test Becomes the Cornerstone

The DOJ’s brief leaned heavily on the now well-established “common use” test first outlined in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief states plainly that AR-15s are arms under the Second Amendment and are “the most popular rifle in the country,” echoing recent unanimous Supreme Court acknowledgment in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

William Kirk pointed out that AR-15s “fall squarely within this category” and criticized the Seventh Circuit’s earlier opinion in Bevis v. City of Naperville for trying to argue that AR-15s aren’t even protected as “arms.” The DOJ obliterated that argument by calling it completely unmoored from both history and precedent.

DOJ Slams the “Militaristic” Excuse

For years, anti-gun lawmakers and courts have leaned on the term “militaristic” to justify banning certain firearms. Not anymore. The DOJ’s brief makes clear that the Second Amendment does not carve out an exception for weapons that look or feel military-style. Braden Langley called it a “buzzword shield” that gun control groups hide behind – and the DOJ just yanked that shield away.

Their historical analysis cuts deep: during the Founding Era, Americans were expected to own arms suitable for militia use. “It was almost demanded of them,” Kirk emphasized. That means modern equivalents like the AR-15 actually fit perfectly with the Second Amendment’s original intent.

Backed by History – and the Founders

The DOJ’s brief is not just a legal document; it’s a history lesson. They go back to colonial mandates requiring citizens to own war-ready arms and trace the roots of the right to keep and bear arms as a means of collective defense. They even quote The Federalist Papers, English common law, and 19th-century court rulings to support the claim that AR-15s are the modern equivalent of protected militia weapons.

Langley put it bluntly: “The DOJ is literally setting up an epic showdown.” And frankly, the research in this brief is so deep, it’s hard to see how any honest court could brush it aside.

Magazines and Attachments Are Also Protected

But the DOJ didn’t stop at rifles. They extended their defense to magazines, suppressors, and other attachments banned by the Illinois law. The brief argues that these items are essential to exercising the right to self-defense and therefore protected.

William Kirk underscored the risk of slippery slope logic – “If they can ban 10-round magazines, what’s stopping them from banning 3-round or 2-round magazines?” The DOJ seems to agree. Their brief warns that such bans “allow the government to sidestep the Second Amendment at the component level.”

Factual Findings Favor Gun Owners

The brief gives weight to the factual record built by District Judge Stephen McGlynn, who presided over a three-day trial. He found that AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes – self-defense, target shooting, and home protection.

Langley emphasized this point: “They are hammering this and hammering this because it’s that obvious.” The DOJ seems to be telling the Seventh Circuit: you’ve ignored the facts once – don’t do it again.

Supreme Court Echoes Are Everywhere

The brief repeatedly invokes Heller, Bruen, and Miller, emphasizing that weapons commonly owned and used for lawful purposes cannot be banned – period. The DOJ even cited recent comments by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas in Snope v. Brown and Harrel v. Raoul, indicating the Supreme Court is paying close attention.

Langley called this moment “historic,” saying, “We’ve never seen anything like this.” He’s right. This is the second time in just weeks that the DOJ under Attorney General Pamela Bondi has filed an amicus brief in favor of gun owners. That kind of action was unthinkable just a year ago.

Political Winds Have Shifted

This brief didn’t come out of nowhere. It was written under the guidance of Trump-appointed DOJ leadership, including Harmeet Dhillon and Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle. Langley even quoted Dhillon saying, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. See you in court, Illinois.”

That kind of language from a federal agency? It’s a thunderclap in the middle of a stormy legal battle over guns. Whether or not people support Trump or Bondi personally, it’s clear that this DOJ is doing something different.

Critics May Still Be Cautious

Even with this landmark brief, Kirk reminded viewers that the DOJ still has other ongoing prosecutions under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which affect gun owners negatively. “There’s been some good, there’s been some bad,” he admitted.

This brief doesn’t fix everything. But it marks a significant step in showing that this DOJ is willing to defend the Second Amendment, not just regulate it.

A Turning Point for 2A Litigation?

It’s hard to overstate how big this moment could be. The DOJ’s arguments will likely shape not only the outcome in Barnett v. Raoul but also influence future cases heading to the Supreme Court.

This could be the template for crushing so-called “assault weapon” bans once and for all. “They laid out the entire amicus brief for the rest of the world to see,” Langley said. And they weren’t shy about it either – using clear language, bold claims, and a full-throated defense of a right too often put on the back burner.

This Is Bigger Than Just Illinois

What happens next in the Seventh Circuit could ripple across the country. If this court reverses its earlier decision and sides with the DOJ and plaintiffs, it will send a powerful message: the federal government is no longer afraid to stand up for gun rights in court.

This isn’t your father’s DOJ. This is a new era – one where the Second Amendment might finally be treated like the real constitutional right that it is.

Let’s hope the courts are paying attention.