Federal Court Strikes Blow to 2A Rights on AR-15 SBRs and Shotguns

In a decision that has sent waves through the Second Amendment community, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that short-barreled rifles (SBRs) are not protected under the Constitution. The case, United States v. Rush, involved Jamond Rush, who was charged for possessing an unregistered 7.5-inch AR-15-style rifle. Despite his legal challenge citing the Bruen decision, the court upheld the NFA restrictions. Attorney Jim Strong, writing for The Truth About Guns, called the ruling both outdated and legally shaky, arguing that it leaned on old case law like Miller while ignoring more recent legal developments.

The Bruen Test and Where the Court Went Wrong

The 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision changed how courts must evaluate gun laws, requiring that all regulations must be grounded in “historical tradition.” That is, any firearm restriction must be comparable to laws that existed during the time of the Founding. The Rush ruling bypasses that framework, according to attorney James Reeves, who blasted the decision in a video breakdown. “They completely ignored Bruen and used bad logic,” Reeves said, “claiming that SBRs are both too dangerous and too concealable to be protected.” But he notes that this line of reasoning falls apart when you look at the facts.

Miller’s Ghost Still Haunts the Courts

Tom Grieve, a former prosecutor turned criminal defense attorney, pointed out how heavily the court leaned on the 1939 Miller decision. That case upheld restrictions on short-barreled shotguns based on their lack of military use. But as Grieve explained, the defense in Miller didn’t even show up to argue, making it a one-sided case from the start. And yet, courts continue to use Miller to justify modern-day gun control – despite the radically changed landscape of firearm technology, usage, and law. “Miller is like using an 8-track tape to run your Spotify playlist,” Grieve said. “It just doesn’t fit anymore.”

The Concealability Myth

One of the Seventh Circuit’s key arguments is that SBRs are dangerous because they are concealable. But Reeves was quick to call this idea nonsense. “Even the smallest SBRs, like the Sig Rattler or Flux Raider, are still way bulkier than any handgun,” he explained. He even demonstrated how long it takes – literally seconds – to convert a braced pistol into an SBR simply by swapping the brace for a stock. “A criminal wouldn’t care about the legal difference, and they sure wouldn’t carry around a $3,000 rifle when they could just use a stolen Glock,” Reeves added.

Crime Statistics Tell a Different Story

Jim Strong drilled into the FBI crime data to reveal an inconvenient truth: handguns are used in roughly 80–90% of gun-related homicides. Rifles, including so-called “assault weapons,” make up only about 3%. Shotguns account for even less – under 2%. SBRs, which fall under rifle and shotgun categories, barely register. “There’s no SBR crime wave,” Strong wrote. “This law isn’t stopping criminals – it’s only tripping up law-abiding gun owners.” He added that criminals don’t care about ATF forms or $200 tax stamps. They’ll use whatever is available and easiest to conceal, and that’s almost always a handgun.

Self-Defeating Logic: Common Use

The Seventh Circuit also claimed that SBRs aren’t in common use, so they’re not protected. But that’s a circular argument, as Strong, Reeves, and Grieve all pointed out. SBRs are rare because the government has restricted them for 90 years. If they weren’t so heavily regulated, more people would own them. “This is a classic catch-22,” said Grieve. “The government bans something, then points to the low number of users to justify continuing the ban.” The idea of “common use” becomes a moving target when the public has been barred from buying the item in the first place.

SBRs Are Already Common—for the Government

Ironically, the very weapons banned for civilians are widely used by the government. Both Strong and Reeves highlighted the military’s M4 carbine – a 14.5-inch barrel rifle – as a perfect example. Special operations units and SWAT teams regularly use SBRs like the Mk18 for their maneuverability in tight quarters. “If it’s good enough for clearing buildings in Fallujah, it’s good enough for protecting your family in a hallway at 2 a.m.,” Reeves said. The idea that these rifles are too dangerous for civilians, but essential for professionals, feels more like elitism than legal reasoning.

Ballistics Show Lower Power, Not Higher Danger

The perception that SBRs are more deadly isn’t backed by physics. Strong broke down the numbers: a standard 5.56mm round fired from a full-length 20-inch barrel hits around 1,290 foot-pounds of energy. But from a 10.3-inch barrel like the Mk18, that drops by about 36%. “The shorter the barrel, the lower the velocity and energy,” Strong noted. “If anything, these guns are less lethal than their non-regulated cousins.” Reeves echoed this with a demo of his registered SBRs, showing how they actually perform compared to full-length rifles.

The Historical Analog Argument Falls Flat

The court’s attempt to justify its ruling using old militia laws was one of the most bizarre elements of the decision. As Reeves pointed out, they cited 17th and 18th-century laws that required militia members to carry long muskets. But those laws weren’t restrictions – they were standardization rules for organized military efficiency. “It’s like saying the Army told soldiers to wear boots, so now civilians can’t wear sneakers,” Reeves quipped. “That’s not an analog. That’s not even in the same solar system.”

Other Nations Don’t Obsess Over Barrel Length

Reeves also compared U.S. regulations with firearm laws in other countries. Canada, for instance, didn’t restrict short-barreled shotguns until recently. Many European nations focus on caliber and magazine capacity – not barrel length. “Even anti-gun countries don’t treat barrel length like it’s black magic,” Reeves said. “This is uniquely American nonsense.” The entire idea that a few inches of steel could turn a legal gun into a felony offense simply doesn’t hold up under global scrutiny.

The Supreme Court Will Have to Step In

All three legal experts – Strong, Reeves, and Grieve – agree that this issue is far from over. With conflicting lower court rulings and the post-Bruen legal standard, it seems inevitable that the Supreme Court will need to weigh in on the status of SBRs and possibly short-barreled shotguns as well. Grieve warned that if this circular logic continues, “we’ll have to keep fighting the same battles again and again.” It’s unclear if the high court is ready to address these questions, but the groundwork has been laid.

Law That Punishes the Law-Abiding

Here’s what’s so frustrating: none of this stops crime. As Reeves bluntly stated, “These rules exist solely to punish gun owners who forget to fill out paperwork.” The criminal doesn’t care if their stock is pinned or their brace is rubber. But for the average person, a simple mistake can lead to federal prison. “It’s bureaucracy as punishment,” Strong added, “not public safety.” There’s a growing sense among gun rights advocates that it’s time to retire these laws – or at least rethink how they’re applied in the modern world.

A Dangerous Step Backward

The Rush decision highlights a troubling disconnect between the courts and real-world firearm ownership. By relying on flawed historical comparisons and dismissing practical realities, the Seventh Circuit has chosen to uphold laws that fail both logic and effectiveness. The ruling reinforces outdated restrictions while offering no measurable gain in public safety. And as the nation continues to redefine the limits of Second Amendment protections under Bruen, cases like this one will only add to the pressure for the Supreme Court to bring clarity – and sanity – back to federal gun laws.