In a rare but monumental shift, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief backing an NRA-supported challenge to Illinois’ sweeping ban on “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines.” As reported by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), this brief was submitted to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on June 13, 2025, in the case Barnett v. Raoul. According to the DOJ, Illinois’ law violates the Second Amendment by banning firearms and accessories in common use for lawful purposes.
The Law That Sparked the Fight: PICA and Its Reach
The law in question – HB 5741, better known as the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA) – was enacted in January 2023 and bans over 1,000 types of firearms, including popular AR-style rifles, along with standard 10+ round rifle magazines and 15+ round handgun magazines. Liberty Doll, a prominent Second Amendment YouTuber, noted in her coverage that this law ignored the clear precedent set by the Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen. Despite a 2023 district court ruling that found PICA likely violated the Constitution, the Seventh Circuit reversed, sending the case into legal limbo until now.
DOJ’s Brief: A Hard Reversal from the Status Quo
In its brief, the DOJ argued that Illinois’ ban fails the constitutional test set by the Supreme Court. As Liberty Doll summarized, the brief focuses on two major points: whether the banned firearms are in common use, and whether magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. The DOJ found the answer to both is “yes.” Their 34-page brief criticizes the Seventh Circuit’s earlier opinion in Bevis v. Naperville, stating it misapplied the “common use” test from Heller and Bruen, and wrongly allowed popular firearms to be banned on the basis of subjective claims of danger.
DOJ Cites the Common Use Doctrine
The brief is crystal clear: the Second Amendment protects arms that are in common use among law-abiding Americans. Quoting United States v. Miller, District of Columbia v. Heller, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the DOJ reaffirmed that weapons chosen for lawful purposes, especially self-defense, cannot be outlawed. According to Liberty Doll, the DOJ explicitly included AR-15s and standard magazines in this category, reminding the court that these are the most commonly owned arms in the nation, used overwhelmingly for legal and peaceful reasons.
Militia Clause Misunderstood, Says DOJ
The DOJ also corrected a common misreading of the Second Amendment’s militia-related language. The brief stated that the prefatory clause (“A well-regulated militia…”) does not limit the operative clause (“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”). Liberty Doll praised this point, noting that the DOJ’s argument aligned with how the Supreme Court itself explained the amendment in Heller. The notion that militaristic weapons should be excluded from constitutional protection is flatly rejected, especially since, historically, citizens were not just allowed, but expected, to possess such arms.
Magazine Limits: Also Unconstitutional
Not stopping at firearms, the DOJ also addressed Illinois’ ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines.” As Liberty Doll explained, the government argued these are standard equipment for many firearms, not “high capacity” outliers. The DOJ compared restrictions on magazines to placing a tax on ink and paper – a clear burden on a constitutional right. This analogy, she noted, demonstrates how deeply flawed the justification for magazine bans really is. You can’t call a 15-round mag “dangerous” when it’s factory standard on most modern handguns.
Illinois Governor: DOJ Is “Wrongheaded”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker didn’t take kindly to the DOJ’s change of stance. In a press conference captured by The Center Square, Pritzker called the DOJ’s brief “wrongheaded,” claiming it ignored the “damage” done across America without assault weapons bans. He cited the federal ban in the 1990s as evidence of reduced gun deaths, although critics have long debated the effectiveness of that policy. “They just don’t understand,” Pritzker said, defending the PICA law and brushing aside constitutional concerns.
Liberty Doll: “They’ve Been Watching Gun YouTube”
Liberty Doll jokingly suggested the DOJ had been watching gun rights YouTubers, since many of the arguments in their brief mirrored those made by content creators for years. From historical militia context to data on lawful AR-15 ownership, the DOJ’s position felt surprisingly aligned with the grassroots Second Amendment community. “It’s things we already knew,” she said, “but it’s nice to see the government finally acknowledging them in a court case.”
NRA-ILA: A Major Victory, But Not the End
The NRA-ILA welcomed the DOJ’s support but emphasized that the fight isn’t over. The Seventh Circuit still has to issue its ruling, and the permanent injunction granted by the district court remains on hold. “We’re optimistic,” the NRA-ILA stated, “but there’s still work to be done.” If the Seventh Circuit rules against Illinois again, it could create a pathway for the Supreme Court to finally weigh in, this time with full briefing and review.
A National Litmus Test
From my perspective, this case is about more than just Illinois – it’s a national litmus test. For the DOJ to stand up and declare that banning AR-15s and standard magazines is unconstitutional marks a significant turning point. For years, federal agencies have leaned heavily in favor of gun control. Now, they’re citing Heller and Bruen the way Second Amendment scholars have all along. It may be politically inconvenient for anti-gun governors like Pritzker, but the Constitution doesn’t bend to emotion or polling.
Common Sense Meets Constitutional Law
The truth is, the Second Amendment is supposed to protect the arms most people actually own. That’s the whole point. When a government bans the most popular rifle in America and calls it “reasonable,” it’s ignoring both the Constitution and reality. The DOJ’s brief brings the debate back to where it belongs – on legal precedent, original intent, and individual rights. And even if the courts still fumble it, the brief will stand as a powerful reminder that our rights are not up for selective interpretation.
Looking Ahead: Supreme Court Showdown Possible
There’s growing speculation that the Supreme Court may take up Barnett v. Raoul in the near future, especially if the Seventh Circuit continues to resist Bruen. Liberty Doll mentioned that Justice Kavanaugh has already signaled interest in reviewing these types of Second Amendment violations. With federal executive agencies and gun rights groups now aligned, pressure is mounting on the courts to act. For now, though, all eyes are on the Seventh Circuit to see if they’ll finally correct their earlier misstep – or dig in deeper.
A Bold, Public Stand
For the first time in years, the Justice Department is taking a bold, public stand for the Second Amendment. By siding with the NRA-backed challenge against Illinois’ gun and magazine bans, the DOJ has not only reversed course, it has reinforced the Constitution. From Liberty Doll’s sharp analysis to JB Pritzker’s angry defense, this case is proving to be one of the most important Second Amendment battles of the decade.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.