7th Circuit Rules SBRs Not Second Amendment Arms

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in United States v. Rush that restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under the National Firearms Act (NFA) remain constitutional. This decision reinforces decades-old legal precedent that many gun rights advocates argue is outdated and incompatible with the modern understanding of the Second Amendment. The ruling is particularly significant in the post-Bruen legal landscape, where courts are supposed to evaluate firearm regulations based on historical tradition.

A Violation of 2A?

The case involved Jamond Rush, who was convicted of illegally possessing an unregistered SBR – specifically, a 7.5-inch Anderson Manufacturing AR-15. Rush challenged the indictment, arguing that the NFA’s restrictions on SBRs violate the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit rejected his claim, stating that SBRs are not constitutionally protected arms, relying heavily on the 1939 United States v. Miller decision.

A Legal Echo from the Past: The Court’s Justification

In its ruling, the Seventh Circuit leaned on Miller, which upheld the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled shotguns, reasoning that such weapons were not in common use for militia service. The court applied the same logic to SBRs, arguing that they are not commonly used for lawful self-defense.

This reasoning is questionable, as pointed out by gun rights analyst Jim Strong in The Truth About Guns. He noted that the Bruen decision set a new standard, requiring gun laws to be rooted in historical analogues from the Founding era. The government was supposed to justify firearm restrictions by demonstrating similar regulations existed in early American history. Instead, the Seventh Circuit relied on Miller, a ruling from 1939 – hardly an example of Founding-era law.

The Circular Logic of Firearm Restrictions

One of the more controversial aspects of the ruling is its circular logic. The court stated that SBRs are not commonly used for self-defense, but as many critics have pointed out, this lack of common use is a direct result of the NFA’s own restrictions. In a Reddit discussion on the ruling, user u/GooseMcGooseFace sarcastically pointed out the absurdity:

“Hey guys, if we ban/restrict something and almost no one can use it, we can turn around and say that you shouldn’t be able to use it because it’s not used! Circular logic? Never heard of it.”

Gun rights advocates argue that this logic is self-reinforcing – if a gun is restricted for long enough, courts can claim it isn’t commonly used, making it easier to justify continued restrictions.

Historical Firearm Laws: A Misguided Comparison

The Seventh Circuit justified the NFA’s restrictions by citing historical firearm laws, including a 1649 Massachusetts law that required musketeers to carry muskets of a specific length and an 1856 North Carolina tax on pistols. However, as pointed out by legal analyst William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, these laws were aimed at ensuring private firearms met military standards – not restricting ownership.

Reddit user u/DBDude criticized the court’s historical analysis, stating:

“Interesting interpretation of the 1649 law, which existed to ensure the privately-owned muskets were sufficient for military service, while the modern military service rifle has a 14.5” barrel. The judges completely missed (most likely on purpose) the logic and context of the law.”

This comparison highlights a fundamental issue with how courts interpret historical gun laws – rather than examining the intent behind these laws, courts cherry-pick examples that support modern restrictions.

Are SBRs Really “More Dangerous” Than Other Firearms?

The court’s decision also relied on the argument that SBRs are uniquely dangerous due to their concealability and power. However, the data does not support this claim. As The Truth About Guns reported, the vast majority of firearm-related homicides involve handguns, not rifles of any kind. FBI crime statistics consistently show that rifles – including SBRs – are used in less than 3% of gun crimes.

Moreover, as Strong pointed out, SBRs are actually less powerful than full-length rifles. The shorter barrel reduces velocity and energy, making them less effective at longer ranges. This directly contradicts the court’s argument that they are more dangerous than other firearms.

Are SBRs Arms? The Court Says No

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the ruling is the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that SBRs are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. This effectively means they can be regulated more strictly than other firearms.

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News called this reasoning “ludicrous,” stating:

“The court said short-barreled rifles fail the first step of Bruen – that they aren’t even protected under the Second Amendment. This is a huge deal.”

This ruling raises troubling questions about what other firearms could be deemed “not arms” in future cases. If an SBR is not an arm, then what about other firearms that don’t fit the court’s definition of common use?

The Court’s Open Hostility to Second Amendment Rights

Gun rights advocates see this ruling as part of a broader trend of judicial hostility toward the Second Amendment. Kirk noted in his analysis that the Seventh Circuit did not simply rule against Rush – it went out of its way to reinforce gun control laws beyond what was necessary for the case.

Reddit user u/Mnemorath summed up the frustration many gun owners feel:

“This is the same circuit court that declared AR-15s to not be arms either. When will SCOTUS and Congress hold such egregious contempt for the Constitution accountable?”

This ruling adds to the growing list of cases where courts have upheld questionable firearm restrictions despite the Supreme Court’s recent pro-Second Amendment decisions.

Will the Supreme Court Step In?

One of the biggest questions now is whether the Supreme Court will take up United States v. Rush. Given the Bruen decision’s emphasis on historical tradition, there is a strong argument that the Supreme Court should overturn this ruling.

Reddit user u/tambrico speculated that the case may be reviewed in light of upcoming Supreme Court rulings:

“This will get GVRed once Snope is decided. Still bullish on a Snope grant.”

If the Supreme Court hears the case, it could be a pivotal moment for the NFA and Second Amendment law. If the justices rule that SBR restrictions are unconstitutional, it would have far-reaching implications for other gun control measures.

The Future of the NFA

Regardless of whether United States v. Rush makes it to the Supreme Court, this case highlights the ongoing battle over the National Firearms Act. The Bruen decision set a new standard for evaluating gun laws, but lower courts are still using outdated precedents like Miller to uphold restrictions.

Yanis pointed out that this fight isn’t over:

“The battle for the Second Amendment isn’t stopping anytime soon. This is just another roadblock, but one that can be fought.”

The gun rights movement has gained significant legal momentum in recent years, and challenges to the NFA are likely to continue.

A Major Setback, But Not the End

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Rush represents a significant legal setback for Second Amendment advocates. By upholding the NFA’s restrictions on SBRs, the court reinforced an outdated legal framework that many argue is inconsistent with modern constitutional analysis.

However, the fight is far from over. The Supreme Court may yet intervene, and ongoing legal challenges to the NFA could ultimately reshape federal gun laws. For now, gun owners must navigate a legal system that remains deeply divided on the scope of the Second Amendment.