Judges Rule the Assault Weapon Ban Doesn’t Violate 2A Rights

In a ruling that stunned Second Amendment advocates, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld Cook County’s long-standing assault weapon ban. As explained by William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, this decision came down while many eyes were focused on the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting two other major gun rights cases. The case, Viramontes v. Cook County, has become the latest example of courts favoring gun control over constitutional rights.

The Standard Has Shifted

According to Kirk, this ruling didn’t just reinforce an assault weapon ban – it changed the rules of the game. The panel concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the banned firearms are “in common use for self-defense,” a phrase Kirk says was twisted from the original Heller standard. Traditionally, courts recognized “in common use” as the key threshold, but now, proving why people use certain guns has become the new bar – and it’s much harder to clear.

The “Common Use” Trap

Kirk explained that proving something is “in common use” is relatively straightforward – millions of Americans own AR-15s, for example. But proving that they are routinely used in self-defense is a totally different task. “It’s an impossible legal standard,” Kirk said, because most defensive gun uses don’t end in firing a shot, let alone get formally recorded. This allows courts to reject challenges simply by claiming the record is insufficient.

Beas v. Naperville Set the Precedent

The panel leaned heavily on a previous case, Beas v. Naperville, where the same court decided that plaintiffs had failed to show AR-15s were common for self-defense. In Viramontes, the judges repeated that logic, claiming the record was too weak to justify overturning the Cook County law. Kirk warned this sets up a dangerous loop: “They say you need a better record – but then they reject the kind of evidence you’d need to build one.”

Plaintiff’s Efforts Weren’t Enough

Viramontes and his legal team did try to establish a record. They submitted 105 exhibits – articles, surveys, studies – but they came late in the process and weren’t enough to satisfy the court. Kirk made it clear that while he’s not criticizing the plaintiff’s legal team, the court “made a big deal” out of the late filing and used it as a reason to toss the case. It raises a question: was there ever a version of this case that would have passed?

Courts Are Blending Legal Steps

One of Kirk’s biggest issues with the ruling is how courts are now blending the two steps of the Bruen standard. Step one asks whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct. If it does, step two looks at whether history supports the restriction. But the 7th Circuit, Kirk says, is stuffing both questions into step one, making it harder to even get a hearing. “They’re bastardizing the process,” Kirk said.

Military-Style Argument Makes a Comeback

The court also repeated another common talking point: that the firearms in question are “military-grade” and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. Kirk dismissed this logic as both tired and irrelevant. “That’s not how the law is supposed to work,” he said. Just because something is used by the military doesn’t automatically make it off-limits to civilians. After all, many military tools, from boots to binoculars, are also sold to civilians.

Supreme Court’s Silence Is Fueling This

Kirk believes the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the Snope and Ocean State Tactical petitions has emboldened anti-gun jurisdictions like Cook County. “They’re going for broke,” he said. Without higher court intervention, lower courts feel free to redefine the law. Kirk warned viewers to expect more of these rulings across the country now that SCOTUS has essentially “turned their back” on gun owners.

Creating a Losing Game

This part of the report hit home for me. If courts are now demanding specific evidence that is nearly impossible to produce, like proving a particular rifle was used in self-defense multiple times, that’s not justice. That’s a trap. How are average people supposed to fight for their rights in court if the system is rigged against them before they even begin? William Kirk called it a “legally impractical” test, and honestly, that feels like an understatement.

Local Bans, No Limits

Another disturbing detail Kirk mentioned is that Illinois lacks statewide preemption. This means towns and counties can make their own gun laws, leading to a patchwork of confusing restrictions. Kirk referenced the city of Naperville and said local governments are taking full advantage of the Supreme Court’s silence. “They’re testing how far they can go,” he said – and right now, there’s no one stopping them.

What This Means for Other States

Kirk predicts this ruling will ripple outward. If the 7th Circuit gets away with shifting the legal standard, other courts may follow. Gun control advocates now have a blueprint: create a ban, demand an impossible legal threshold from challengers, and get a court to declare the record lacking. Without Supreme Court oversight, there’s no check on this legal maneuvering.

Buckle Up

William Kirk closed his breakdown with a warning: “You might as well get used to this.” As long as the high court stays quiet, gun bans will keep spreading, backed by courts that twist legal standards to justify civilian disarmament. And while plaintiffs can appeal, the hurdles are high and the clock is ticking. If the trend continues, Americans may find their constitutional rights slipping away – not through sweeping federal laws, but through slow, local erosion.