DOJ Enters Fight—and Puts All Gun-Grabbing States on Notice

In a dramatic move that caught many by surprise, the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has filed a powerful amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, declaring that Illinois’ so-called “assault weapons” ban is unconstitutional. According to the brief, the Protect Illinois Communities Act violates the Second Amendment by banning firearms and accessories that are commonly used by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department made it clear that this is more than just a legal opinion – it’s a signal that the federal government now fully recognizes the constitutional right to keep and bear arms as it was originally intended. As attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner put it, “This is a seismic shift. For the first time in American history, the United States federal government is standing up for the Second Amendment in an AR-15 ban case.”

Amicus Brief: AR-15s Are Protected “Arms”

At the heart of the DOJ’s brief is the argument that AR-15 rifles fall squarely within the meaning of “arms” under the Second Amendment. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the brief emphasizes that the AR-15 is widely owned, commonly used, and clearly protected.

The DOJ wrote that “the AR-15 qualifies as an arm because it is commonly used for lawful purposes like self-defense.” As gun rights YouTuber Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets reported, this marks a rare moment where the DOJ not only recognizes the gun’s widespread use, but also defends its legality without hesitation. “This is big, big, big,” Yanis exclaimed. “Even the DOJ can’t ignore the Supreme Court anymore.”

Magazines and Attachments Also Protected

But the DOJ didn’t stop at rifles. The brief also blasts Illinois’ ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” and attachments like foregrips, flash suppressors, and even suppressors. The DOJ states these items are not “dangerous and unusual” but are instead standard tools that enhance firearm safety and usability.

Yanis pointed out that over 100 million such magazines are already in circulation across America. “That’s not unusual,” he said. “That’s common, everyday ownership.” The DOJ brief agrees, citing data and legal precedent to argue that these components are essential for self-defense and training.

DOJ Cites Text, History, and Precedent

According to the DOJ, the state of Illinois has failed the two-part test outlined in Bruen: (1) whether the banned items are covered by the Second Amendment’s text, and (2) whether there’s a historical tradition of banning them. The answer to both is a clear “no.”

The brief argues that in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, there were no broad bans on weapon types, capacities, or accessories. Mark W. Smith explained this beautifully: “This brief ties everything back to our Founding Era. The right to bear arms wasn’t about muskets – it was about ensuring the public had the tools to protect themselves, their communities, and their country.”

Suppressors Recognized as Protected

One of the most surprising and powerful elements in the DOJ’s filing is its explicit recognition of suppressors, also known as silencers, as protected arms under the Constitution. This marks a sharp departure from past DOJ interpretations that treated suppressors as exotic or military-specific.

Smith called this “a gamechanger,” noting that the DOJ “points out suppressors are arms under the text of the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.” This opens the door for challenges to suppressor bans in other states and even at the federal level.

In Common Use: The Most Important Legal Standard

The DOJ leaned heavily on the “common use” standard set in Heller and reinforced in Bruen. It stressed that items like AR-15s and standard 30-round magazines are in common use and overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes.

After a detailed trial, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn found that AR-15s and related components “are clearly outliers” when used in mass shootings and that these tragic incidents “are the exception, not the rule.” The DOJ agreed, and highlighted these findings as key to understanding why the Illinois law fails under constitutional scrutiny.

Challenging the “Militaristic” Argument

One of Illinois’ main defenses is that AR-15s are too “militaristic” to be protected. But the DOJ and multiple legal scholars reject that idea entirely. The brief explains that even if a weapon has military origins, that does not strip it of constitutional protection. In fact, history shows that early Americans were expected to own militarily useful weapons for militia service.

Smith emphasized, “This argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t cover ‘militaristic’ arms is completely made up. It’s not supported by the text, by the history, or by Supreme Court precedent. This DOJ brief puts that myth to rest.”

Key DOJ Figures Behind the Brief

This historic legal brief was crafted by some of the top legal minds in the Trump-Bondi DOJ. Chad Mizelle, Jason Manion, Harmeet Dhillon, and Jesus A. Osete led the effort, and the filing reflects their deep constitutional expertise. According to Smith, “This is the kind of legal leadership we need in Washington – people who know the Constitution and are willing to defend it.”

He added that these same lawyers may influence future rulings across the federal judiciary and possibly shape the next round of Second Amendment decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Implications Beyond Illinois

This case isn’t just about one state. As Yanis pointed out, “This case could influence others in California, New York, New Jersey, and everywhere these bans are spreading.” A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, backed by the DOJ’s powerful arguments, could set a nationwide precedent that shields gun owners from broad weapons bans.

That kind of ripple effect is exactly what Second Amendment advocates have been fighting for. As Smith said, “If the Seventh Circuit rules the right way, it will show every state that you can’t just ban things you don’t like and call it ‘safety.’ The Constitution doesn’t work that way.”

A Major Shift From the Past DOJ

What makes this brief especially remarkable is that it represents a total reversal from the DOJ’s stance under previous administrations. For years, the Department of Justice either supported gun restrictions or remained neutral. Now, it’s going on offense for gun owners.

Yanis summed it up perfectly: “This is the DOJ backing the Constitution for once.” The brief sends a loud message to lower courts, state governments, and even the Supreme Court: The federal government now supports the full scope of Second Amendment rights, including ownership of modern semiautomatic rifles and their accessories.

A DOJ That Fights For Freedom

It’s hard to overstate how rare this is. The DOJ is often viewed as an arm of executive power, not a champion of individual rights. But this brief feels different. It feels like a return to the founding principles of American law, where government power is limited and individual liberty is protected.

Personally, I find it incredibly refreshing to see the DOJ step up and say what gun owners have been saying for years: common guns used by common people for common purposes are protected – end of story. The fact that it took this long is frustrating, but the fact that it’s happening now is cause for hope.

A Legal Milestone for Gun Rights

The Trump-Bondi DOJ’s filing in Barnett v. Raoul may prove to be one of the most important Second Amendment moments in recent legal history. Backed by expert legal reasoning, Supreme Court precedent, and overwhelming evidence, the DOJ has come down firmly on the side of gun owners.

Whether this helps secure a victory in the Seventh Circuit or sets the stage for a Supreme Court showdown, one thing is clear: the battle lines have been redrawn. For the first time, the federal government is not just defending the Second Amendment – it’s fighting for it.