Harmeet Dhillon’s Strong Words in Landmark 2A Court Battle

If you follow Second Amendment litigation, you don’t often hear the U.S. Department of Justice step into a circuit-court fight to say – on the record – that AR-15s and similar rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. Yet that’s exactly what William, host of Copper Jacket TV, says happened during oral argument in the Seventh Circuit in Barnett v. Raoul, the challenge to Illinois’ “assault-weapons” and magazine ban. 

Attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner independently recapped the same hearing and emphasized how unusual and strategically important the federal government’s amicus appearance was in this case. Both creators heard a clear through-line: DOJ urged the panel to treat the Second Amendment as not a “second-class” right and to reject the circuit’s idiosyncratic test that leans on a “militaristic” label.

What William Heard In The Courtroom Audio

Because the Seventh Circuit streams audio only, William listened to roughly ninety minutes of argument so his viewers didn’t have to. He clipped what he called the headline moment: Harmeet Dhillon opened, “The United States has a strong interest in ensuring that the Second Amendment is not relegated to a second-class right,” before adding that “AR-15s and similar weapons are clearly ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.” 

According to William, Dhillon also told the court the Seventh Circuit’s “militaristic” framing is “not found in Supreme Court precedent,” and is historically and doctrinally the wrong rule to apply. For William, that was “historic” – a recorded, affirmative statement of the federal government’s position that directly favors everyday gun owners in a marquee case. 

Mark W. Smith’s Procedural Roadmap

Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney and Supreme Court bar member, walked viewers through how we got here. After the Seventh Circuit initially demanded detailed findings of fact (an unusual detour in modern 2A cases), Judge Stephen McGlynn in the Southern District of Illinois held a trial and issued a 167-page decision concluding the state’s Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) violates the Second Amendment. The state appealed; a three-judge panel stayed McGlynn’s ruling and heard fresh argument. Mark’s view: even under the panel’s own earlier, controversial Bevis standard – Illinois still loses on the facts Judge McGlynn developed.

The Bevis Standard Under Fire

Both commentators argue the Seventh Circuit’s Bevis test is inconsistent with Heller and Bruen. Mark says the panel invented a lens that asks if arms are “militaristic” and then treats that label as disqualifying, which flips the Supreme Court’s “common use” framework on its head. William reports DOJ explicitly rejected that approach during oral argument, calling it “not appropriate historically” and “not appropriate in the context of today.” That alignment – DOJ plus a detailed district-court record – makes it harder (though not impossible) for the panel to keep avoiding the Supreme Court’s text-and-history method. 

Common Use Versus Militaristic Framing

Under Heller and Bruen, the baseline questions are textual (“arms”), then historical (“dangerous and unusual,” founding-era analogues). “Common use” matters: if millions of law-abiding Americans own a category of arm for lawful purposes, it’s presumptively protected. Mark wanted to hear even more emphasis on that common-use showing, noting the Supreme Court didn’t require trials with dueling experts in Heller, McDonald, Caetano, or Bruen. William’s clips fill the gap: DOJ’s lawyer underscored that AR-15s meet the definition of protected arms and that the panel’s “militaristic” filter has no Supreme Court footing. My read: if a federal court privileges a “militaristic” label over common-use reality, it’s not applying Heller/Bruen – it’s replacing them.

Why This Panel Is A Tough Hill To Climb

Mark handicaps the panel bluntly. He expects Judge Michael Brennan to side with Judge McGlynn’s order and the Second Amendment, Judge Frank Easterbrook to oppose, and Judge Amy St. Eve to be the swing. Based on her prosecutorial background and past 2A votes, Mark pegs a 10–15% chance of a clean 2–1 pro-2A win, though he detected skepticism from Judge St. Eve when the state tried to brush aside the district court’s exhaustive findings as mere “legislative facts.” William echoes the caution: the Seventh Circuit has already signaled it’s comfortable with a unique standard that disfavors modern rifles, so expecting a dramatic about-face is a big ask – even with DOJ weighing in.

The DOJ’s Five Minutes That Mattered

Mark singled out DOJ’s five-minute presentation as surgically effective: the government told the panel that its own Bevis construct is “totally inconsistent” with Supreme Court precedent, and that Judge McGlynn did an admirable job trying to satisfy both the Seventh Circuit’s demands and Heller/Bruen. That matters for two reasons. 

First, it validates the trial-level record that already favored the plaintiffs. Second, it marks DOJ’s stance in a live, published argument – ammunition the plaintiffs can carry into cert petitions and merits briefing if (when) the case heads to the Supreme Court. William’s takeaway is similar: even if the panel won’t budge, this government position now exists on tape, and that’s a sea change from the posture gun-rights litigants faced just a year ago.

Legislative Facts, Adjudicative Facts, And Delay

Why did the Seventh Circuit demand a trial at all? Mark suggests it looked like a delay tactic – a way to avoid applying Bruen’s clean historical test by bogging the case down in expert battles and “findings.” The irony: once the trial happened, the facts favored gun owners, and now the state is arguing those findings shouldn’t bind the appellate court because they’re just “legislative facts.” As Mark explains, Supreme Court 2A decisions don’t hinge on trial records; they apply constitutional text and widely known historical realities. That framework tends to favor the plaintiffs in arms bans because the founding era lacks the kind of broad categorical prohibitions modern states are trying to defend.

What A Win – Or A Loss – Would Mean

If the panel affirms Judge McGlynn, Illinois’ PICA provisions restricting semi-automatic rifles, magazines, and related registration/enforcement fall, with ripple effects on similar bans. If the panel reverses or punts again, plaintiffs still gained a strategic asset: a detailed district-court record plus a DOJ statement that undercuts the core “militaristic” rationale other states are leaning on. In other words, a Seventh Circuit loss could still sharpen the question for the Supreme Court and make a grant of review more attractive. 

Back To Heller And Bruen, Please

Both commentators land in roughly the same place: courts should apply the law we have. Heller and Bruen ask whether the arm is within the Second Amendment’s text and whether the government’s restriction fits within our historical tradition. There is no “militaristic” carve-out in that test, and trying to smuggle one in looks like ends-driven judging. DOJ’s appearance, as William and Mark describe it, is a welcome course-correction. Even if this panel resists, the message is clear: the federal government shouldn’t be inventing standards that diminish a constitutional right, and neither should the courts.

The Path Forward, And What To Watch

From here, watch for three things. First, how the opinion handles Judge McGlynn’s findings – does the panel respect them, sidestep them, or call for yet more process? Second, whether the opinion continues to rely on Bevis-style reasoning or finally aligns with Heller/Bruen. Third, what DOJ does next – if it files similar pro-2A briefs in high-stakes cases like Duncan (magazine limits) or others on a Supreme Court track, that’s a genuine institutional shift.

For now, credit to William for surfacing the key audio lines and to Mark for situating them in the bigger litigation map. If nothing else, the Seventh Circuit now has the United States on record saying AR-15s are protected arms – an argument 2A litigants will cite early and often.