AWB Faces Major Court Battle

Host Kevin Small opened CRPA TV’s discussion by framing Barnett v. Raoul as far more than a local fight. Illinois’ 2023 law – HB 5471 – doesn’t just forbid sales of a few rifle models; as Small summarized, it sweeps in semi-automatic rifles, a swath of common semi-automatic handguns, and nearly half of magazines in circulation. 

CRPA President Chuck Michel stressed that the statute’s breadth is the point: feature-based bans, “copies or duplicates” clauses, magazine caps, and even component-level restrictions are designed to cover so much territory that ordinary owners and retailers cannot navigate compliance. In that sense, he argued, Illinois is trying to outpace California and New York – and the Seventh Circuit argument shows the whole country is watching.

What the Ban Actually Covers, According to the Plaintiffs

Drawing from the complaint, Small listed the trigger points: detachable-magazine semi-auto rifles with common features like pistol grips, telescoping stocks, or flash suppressors; pistols with threaded barrels or fixed magazines over 15; and fixed-magazine rifles over 10. Michel added that the state went “kitchen sink,” reaching parts as well as complete firearms – uppers, trigger groups, even pins – so repairs and replacements are effectively constrained. 

The statute’s “assault weapon” definition, they argued, is a modern political term rather than a historical category, which matters under Bruen. The combined effect, in their telling, is to outlaw hundreds of models, including the most popular rifles in America, plus a massive slice of standard magazines.

How Barnett Got to the Seventh Circuit – Twice

Michel walked through the path. After Bruen, multiple suits were filed; the district court initially enjoined key parts of Illinois’ law. The state appealed, and a Seventh Circuit panel (with Judge Frank Easterbrook in the majority and Judge Michael Brennan dissenting) reversed the injunction. Back down it went, this time to a four-day trial producing a detailed 160-page decision from the district judge. 

On return to the same Seventh Circuit panel – Easterbrook, Brennan, and now Judge Amy St. Eve (replacing a retired judge) – the case was argued again. Small emphasized the stakes: a federal appellate court is now deciding whether common semi-automatic arms and standard magazines are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment’s text.

Panel Dynamics Shift: Brennan Steps In, Easterbrook Steps Back

In Michel’s account of the latest oral argument, the tone changed markedly. Where Easterbrook had previously driven the colloquy, Brennan “stepped up,” pressing the state on Bruen’s text-and-history methodology and on whether semi-autos and magazines are covered “arms.” St. Eve, a Trump appointee, asked pointed questions that suggested a close engagement with the doctrine rather than reflexive deference to the state. Small summarized the mood: the panel felt more balanced, the questions more disciplined, and the conversation more tightly tethered to Bruen – a dynamic that left the plaintiffs, and Michel in particular, cautiously optimistic.

The Core Fight: Are Semi-Autos and Magazines “Arms” Under Bruen?

Michel said a recurring move from anti-gun jurisdictions is to avoid Bruen’s history test by declaring the items not “arms” at all. He attributed that approach to Judge Easterbrook’s earlier framing – suggesting AR-15-style rifles are too similar to M16s to fall within the Second Amendment. That tactic, Michel argued, collapses under record evidence distinguishing semi-automatic from fully automatic arms. When Bruen’s first step is met – i.e., the items are arms in common use – the burden shifts to the state to produce a historical analogue for banning them. On that terrain, he said, Illinois’ analogies – such as “trap-gun” and Bowie-knife restrictions – are non-starters.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Clears the Bar – And Then Some

Small highlighted widespread praise for Erin Murphy (Clement & Murphy), who argued for the challengers and has led in other major Second Amendment cases. Michel, who was in the courtroom, said Murphy “was loaded for bear,” sidestepped hypotheticals designed to bog down time, and answered St. Eve’s swing-vote-style questions with crisp, doctrine-first responses. 

The impression they shared: the panel got the method right – first determine whether the items are “arms in common use,” then demand real historical analogues if the state still wants to restrict them. On that logic, Small suggested, Illinois’ sweeping prohibitions look especially vulnerable.

A Surprise Ally: DOJ Argues on the Side of Gun Owners

Perhaps the most unexpected development, Small emphasized, was the U.S. Department of Justice appearing in support of gun owners. Michel said the DOJ’s civil-rights chief personally argued and secured time at the lectern, a move he believes raised the stakes and drew sharper attention from the panel – particularly St. Eve. Whatever one’s priors, it’s hard to overstate the institutional signal sent when the federal government shows up to insist that semi-automatic firearms and standard magazines fall within the Second Amendment’s protections. Strategically, that also telegraphs to the Supreme Court that this case is ripe for review.

What Counts as History? The State’s Analogues Under the Microscope

Following Bruen, the state must point to regulations with a “well-established and representative tradition” analogous to today’s ban. Michel said Illinois leaned on 19th-century rules against booby-trap “trap guns” and on Bowie-knife restrictions. But as he and Small outlined, those laws addressed specific methods (spring-guns that fire unattended) or concealed carry/affray concerns – not commonplace ownership of widely used arms. Banning the repair parts of common rifles, or the magazines they require to function, is a different thing altogether. If the panel follows Bruen faithfully, Michel believes the historical showing simply isn’t there.

The Fork in the Road: En Banc or Supreme Court

On next steps, Michel was blunt. If the plaintiffs win 2–1, he expects Illinois to petition for en banc review, pulling the entire Seventh Circuit into the fight. If the plaintiffs lose, he expects a straight petition to the Supreme Court. Small flagged one complication: a split decision that saves some features but not others (e.g., striking the firearm ban but leaving the magazine cap) would create a “quagmire” of partial holdings. That outcome risks prolonging uncertainty for owners and law enforcement alike and could force the Supreme Court to step in just to impose coherent rules.

The Duncan Connection: Magazines Today, Rifles Tomorrow

Small tied Barnett directly to Duncan v. Bonta, the California magazine-ban case now petitioned at the Supreme Court. Michel noted Duncan is ahead procedurally; the justices could take it, lay down clear methodology (and explicitly hold that magazines are protected arms), then GVR Barnett – grant, vacate, and remand – so the Seventh Circuit applies the clarified standard to both firearms and magazines. Conversely, if the Court prefers one case that addresses both categories together, Barnett could be the vehicle after a Seventh Circuit decision. Either way, he said, the Court is aware of both matters and will likely choreograph them in tandem.

Why California Should Care: A Ruling Here Could Echo There

Although Barnett is an Illinois case, Small stressed that California’s own “assault weapon” and magazine restrictions sit on the same doctrinal fault lines. That’s why CRPA filed amicus briefs and why Michel linked Barnett’s outcome to West Coast litigation. If the Seventh Circuit embraces Bruen’s structure and rejects weak analogues, California’s bans face heightened risk; if the Seventh Circuit falters, the Supreme Court may finally take the “AR case” the justices have hinted they are ready to decide. From a policy perspective, the more courts acknowledge that common, semi-automatic platforms and their magazines are ordinary “arms,” the harder it becomes to defend sweeping categorical bans.

The Bigger Picture: Courts, Calendars, and a Narrowing Path for Bans

Throughout the segment, Small and Michel returned to the same theme: Bruen demands discipline – text first, then history. When a law targets items owned by millions for lawful purposes, courts shouldn’t redefine them out of the Constitution or stitch together non-analogous histories. My view aligns with that methodological humility. Whether one likes or dislikes semi-autos, clarity beats improvisation. A clean decision in Barnett, or in Duncan, would reduce forum-shopping and yo-yo injunctions, and tell legislators what survives scrutiny. That alone would be progress.

A Case That Could Reshape the Map

In Kevin Small’s words, Barnett is a “high-stakes” fight with national implications; in Chuck Michel’s account, the latest oral argument landed better than expected – thanks to Brennan’s engagement, St. Eve’s focus, Murphy’s execution, and the DOJ’s eye-opening support. From here, it’s en banc or SCOTUS. However the sequencing plays out – Duncan first, Barnett later, or both together – the judiciary is running out of room to avoid the central question: are common semi-automatic firearms and their magazines protected “arms” under the Second Amendment? If the answer is yes, sweeping bans like Illinois’ HB 5471 will face a very steep climb.