A storm is brewing in Illinois – and it’s not just political noise. A federal case called Barnett v. Raoul, now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has become a national focal point for the future of AR-15 bans. In a nearly unprecedented move, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed an amicus brief siding with gun rights advocates and calling Illinois’ “assault weapon” ban unconstitutional. Even more stunning, 35 Illinois state attorneys have filed a separate brief echoing that same message.
This marks a rare moment where local and federal authorities agree: the ban likely violates the Second Amendment. According to the DOJ’s brief, the AR-15 is not only a protected “arm,” it’s in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense and sport shooting.
DOJ: AR-15s Are Protected “Arms” Under the Constitution
The DOJ brief, led by Acting Associate Attorney General Chad Mizelle, argues clearly: “The Act bans AR-15s and other firearms that are in common use, which violates the Second Amendment.” The government asserts that banning weapons simply because they look militaristic ignores both text and history.
Their filing points to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which said the government cannot ban weapons that are commonly possessed for lawful reasons. The AR-15, the DOJ emphasizes, meets that standard and is “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” According to the DOJ, that’s all it takes to be protected under the Constitution.
35 Illinois State Attorneys Join the Fight
If the DOJ brief wasn’t powerful enough, the second sledgehammer came on June 13, 2025, when 35 elected prosecutors from across Illinois filed their own amicus brief. As reported by William from Copper Jacket TV, these prosecutors stated they could not enforce a law they believe is unconstitutional.
Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy summarized it this way: “The forces of freedom are gathering against tyranny.” He emphasized that these attorneys swore an oath to the U.S. and Illinois constitutions – and now they’re standing by it, challenging a law they would normally be required to enforce. That’s not just symbolic – it’s seismic.
“Common Use” Is the Cornerstone of the Case
Both the DOJ and the 35 attorneys argue that AR-15s and their magazines are in “common use” – a legal term that’s become central to Second Amendment battles. As Braden Langley noted, “There are over 25 million AR-15s in civilian hands in the U.S. – that’s not rare. That’s common.”
The DOJ brief builds on this by pointing out that “common use” also applies to magazines, suppressors, and other attachments. In their words, banning these components is like banning paper and ink for newspapers – it restricts the core right itself. That’s a striking analogy.
This Isn’t Just About AR-15s – It’s About Precedent
What makes this case different is its potential to set national precedent. In his video, William (Copper Jacket TV) explains that if the Seventh Circuit upholds the lower court’s ruling against the Illinois ban, the case is likely headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. With the DOJ and 35 state attorneys on the record, it becomes nearly impossible for the high court to ignore.
Langley Outdoors highlighted how the Supreme Court has already signaled interest. Justice Kavanaugh recently stated that a case challenging these bans could reach the Court within a term or two. If this is that case, the ruling could obliterate assault weapon bans nationwide.
The Court’s Past Mistakes May Soon Be Reversed
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the Seventh Circuit has seen this issue. In the earlier Bevis v. Naperville ruling, the court said the ban was likely constitutional. But even in that ruling, the judges admitted it was “just a preliminary look.”
Now, after a multi-day bench trial, the district court found that AR-15s and their magazines are in fact protected arms. That evidence, paired with the DOJ and prosecutors’ support, has many watching for a complete reversal of the earlier Bevis ruling. Braden Langley called this “the most solid tapestry of freedom we’ve seen come together in years.”
“Militaristic” Doesn’t Mean Illegal
A key argument in favor of the ban has always been that the AR-15 is “too much like a military weapon.” But the DOJ brief dismantles that. They point out that AR-15s lack the selective-fire capability of military rifles like the M16, which can shoot fully automatic. AR-15s are semi-automatic only, like many common handguns.
Langley nailed it: “Neither semi-automatic rifles nor 10+ round magazines are ‘dangerous and unusual.’ That claim just doesn’t hold up anymore.” The DOJ agrees, stating that “militaristic” features don’t disqualify a firearm from constitutional protection.
Copper Jacket TV: “I’ve Never Seen This Before”
William, host of Copper Jacket TV, was stunned by what he saw: “This is huge… I’ve never seen the DOJ come out this strongly in favor of gun rights.” He emphasized how rare it is for federal attorneys to side with gun owners in court, especially in such a bold and unambiguous way.
Even more shocking, he noted, is the combination of federal and local prosecutors saying the same thing. That kind of alignment may be the death knell for AR-15 bans, at least in their current form.
This Is a Turning Point
Personally, I think we’re witnessing a major shift. When prosecutors, who are expected to enforce gun laws, step up and say, “This law violates the Constitution,” it tells you something deeper is happening. This isn’t just about gun politics – it’s about restoring the plain meaning of the Constitution, as the DOJ puts it.
It’s also refreshing to see a return to legal clarity. The arguments here aren’t wrapped in emotion – they’re grounded in the Constitution’s original text and historical context. That’s what makes this case so powerful.
The Opposition Will Still Fight
To be clear, this isn’t over. Gun control advocates and state officials are expected to appeal any ruling against the ban to the Supreme Court. If the Seventh Circuit affirms the lower court’s ruling, it will almost certainly be reviewed. But with the DOJ, 35 Illinois attorneys, and a mountain of case law supporting the plaintiffs, the path to overturning bans has never looked stronger.
Langley warned that anti-gun groups will continue trying “to get around the Constitution using word games and reinterpretation.” But in this case, even those tactics may not be enough.
What Happens Next?
Now, all eyes are on the Seventh Circuit. Will the judges listen to the mountain of legal and factual evidence now before them? Or will they double down on the flawed reasoning from the earlier Bevis case?
One thing is certain – this isn’t just an Illinois issue anymore. The outcome of Barnett v. Raoul could decide the fate of AR-15 bans in every state that still has one. If the court affirms the ruling and the Supreme Court takes the case, the Second Amendment may get its strongest defense in decades.
A Long Time Coming
From William at Copper Jacket TV, to Braden Langley at Langley Outdoors Academy, to the Department of Justice itself – this moment feels different. The pressure is real. The legal arguments are tight. And the support is widespread. We may be standing at the edge of a judicial shift that finally reaffirms what the Second Amendment has always meant.
It’s too early to say for sure, but if there was ever a time to ask, Is this the beginning of the end for AR-15 bans? – that time is now.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.