In a bold new amicus brief filed in Barnett v. Raoul, attorney Barry Arrington, representing the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), argues something many courts have hesitated to consider: that AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles may actually enjoy more constitutional protection than handguns. This idea, rooted in the Founding Fathers’ original intentions for the Second Amendment, has gained serious traction, and gun rights attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law agrees. As he put it in a recent video, “maybe this is why everyone should have an AR-15.”
Not Just About Crime: The Bigger Threat Is Tyranny
Both Arrington and Kirk are quick to challenge what they call a “cramped” view of the Second Amendment. Many courts, including the Seventh Circuit, focus only on the right to protect oneself from criminal violence. But as the amicus brief explains, that’s only half the story. Quoting directly from Heller and Rahimi, Arrington reminds us that the Second Amendment was also meant to defend against public violence, meaning tyranny from government and violence from lawless mobs. Kirk echoes this point: “The Founders weren’t worried about getting mugged in a park. They had just fought a war against a king.”
The Founders Wanted Citizens Armed for Resistance
Arrington builds a powerful case using historical writings from James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Tench Coxe, and Noah Webster. These Founders and early constitutional scholars didn’t just believe in the right to self-defense against criminals – they saw armed citizens as the ultimate check on government overreach. As Kirk emphasizes, “The Second Amendment is not really there to protect your freedoms. It’s there to protect your liberty – your ability to live the life you choose, without fear of the state.”
AR-15s Are the Modern Militia Arms
Here’s where the argument gets even more interesting. According to Arrington, AR-15s are the modern equivalent of the muskets used by the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord. In the Founders’ time, militia members brought their own long guns to defend the public, not handguns. And in today’s America, the AR-15 fills that same role. “Resistors do it with the prevailing common long gun of the day,” writes Arrington, quoting fellow gun rights scholar Konstadinos Moros. “Not with small pistols.”
Smith & Wesson v. Mexico Strengthens the Case
A major win for the gun rights side came on June 5, 2025, in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that AR-15s and AK-47s are in common use by law-abiding citizens – and therefore protected by the Second Amendment under Heller. The Court specifically rejected the idea that labeling these rifles “military-style” makes them less protected. According to Kirk, “That one line from Justice Kagan, ‘the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country’, just obliterates the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning.”
Handguns May Actually Rank Lower
Arrington’s brief doesn’t just say that AR-15s are protected. It argues they may deserve more protection than handguns. Why? Because the Second Amendment’s core purpose wasn’t about stopping a burglar – it was about preventing tyranny. And rifles are the superior tool for that job. “If you actually take a look at the case law,” Kirk says, “militia members were expected to arrive for duty with the most modern and effective weapon imaginable at that time.” That weapon today is the AR-15, not a small handgun.
A Warning from History: Disarmament Precedes Oppression
Both Arrington and Kirk pull from dark chapters of human history to make their point. Arrington cites Holocaust survivor and federal judge Alex Kozinski, who famously said that “tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” Judge Kozinski warned that history shows over and over again – disarm the people, and it’s easier to control them. Kirk adds, “This isn’t fear-mongering. This is the reality our Founders lived through.”
The Myth That AR-15s Are Only for Warzones
The government’s argument in Barnett v. Raoul is that AR-15s are “poor choices for self-defense” and “not suitable outside of a warzone.” Arrington dismantles this claim. He points out that such arguments ignore the deeper function of the Second Amendment. It’s not just about what’s “practical” for a homeowner – it’s about ensuring the people always have the tools to check government power if things ever spiral. And those tools, he argues, are rifles like the AR-15.
The Common Use Test Can’t Be Twisted
Another key argument made in the brief is that courts have twisted the “common use” test from Heller to fit political goals. Instead of looking at how many people own a firearm, courts like the Seventh Circuit ask why they own it, then deny protection if they don’t like the answer. Arrington warns this changes the standard entirely. In his words, the test must be based on “numerical value” – not whether judges feel the weapon is suited for self-defense. The Supreme Court agrees, he says, as confirmed in Smith & Wesson Brands.
Our Liberty Depends on This
Kirk drives the point home in simple terms: “You take away the people’s ability to push back, and you take away their liberty.” He notes that modern Americans often forget that the Second Amendment wasn’t written during peacetime. It came after a revolution, and was written by people who had used personal weapons to fight their own government. Those lessons, says Kirk, are just as important today.
A Court Battle with National Stakes
Barnett v. Raoul is more than just another lawsuit about Illinois’s “assault weapon” ban. If Arrington’s arguments hold weight – and if higher courts, possibly even the Supreme Court, agree – this case could reset how America looks at the AR-15. Kirk believes the Seventh Circuit may still rule against gun owners, but he’s hopeful this case will end up at the Supreme Court. “We need a final answer,” he said, “because too many courts are playing games with our rights.”
This Could Redefine the Gun Debate
What makes this brief so fascinating is that it challenges both anti-gun activists and even some pro-gun arguments. For years, gun rights debates focused on personal self-defense. But Arrington, and by extension NAGR, are flipping the script – putting the focus back where the Founders had it: defending against tyranny. That changes everything. It also reframes the AR-15 not as a “scary rifle,” but as a modern version of the Minutemen’s musket – a symbol of free people standing guard over their liberty.
The AR-15 May Be the Most Protected Gun in America
With Smith & Wesson now on the books, and with arguments from experts like Barry Arrington and William Kirk gaining ground, the AR-15 may be the most protected firearm in the country, not the least. That’s a dramatic shift in how the law might view semi-automatic rifles going forward. If courts take these arguments seriously, and if more Americans understand the true purpose of the Second Amendment, we may be witnessing a turning point in the national conversation on gun rights.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.