In an opening brief that feels more like a slap in the face to the Constitution than a legal argument, the State of Illinois has laid out its defense of the Protect Illinois Communities Act—a sweeping “assault weapons” and magazine ban that critics say goes far beyond regulation and straight into outright disarmament.
The case, Barnett v. Raoul, is one of the top federal challenges to the law. The plaintiffs already won at the district level, but the state is now trying to reverse that ruling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. What’s catching everyone’s attention isn’t just that Illinois is defending a controversial law—but how they’re doing it.
William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, pulled no punches in his breakdown of the state’s legal strategy.
“Illinois wants to assign a value to your life,” he says. “They’re arguing that only the state can decide what type of firearm you get to use in order to defend it.”
Let that sink in.
The State’s Four-Point Plan to Disarm You
According to Illinois’ own filing, they’re claiming:
- Only firearms “in common use” for self-defense are protected by the Second Amendment.
- Firearms “more appropriate” for military use—like AR-15s—aren’t protected at all.
- Any accessories or features deemed “unnecessary” by the state are fair game to ban.
- The state alone gets to make those determinations for you.
Illinois’ brief reads like it was written by someone who’s never touched a firearm but has spent hours googling scary-sounding terms. It says the AR-15 is basically an M16—ignoring the very real fact that one is semi-automatic and the other is a select-fire military weapon. Because the two rifles can use the same ammo and have similar barrel lengths, Illinois argues the civilian variant should be banned.
SEE ALSO: Trijicon Unveils MRO SD Red Dot — NRA 2025
That’s like banning Mustangs because they can drive the same speed as police cruisers.
It gets worse.
The state also argues that high-capacity magazines aren’t needed because “the average number of rounds fired in self-defense is only 2.2,” according to one of their expert witnesses. That’s right—they want to limit your capacity based on a number that can’t possibly predict the next violent encounter in your life.
And when it comes to overpenetration concerns? Illinois says AR-15s are “unsuitable” for home defense because of the potential risk of bullets going through walls. Translation: your neighbor’s drywall has more rights than you do.
The Most Offensive Argument Yet
But the real gut punch comes with the idea that the state gets to decide what your life is worth—and what tools you’re allowed to use to preserve it.
“By claiming certain weapons are ‘overkill’ for civilian self-defense,” says Kirk, “Illinois is arrogantly declaring that they—not you—know what you should be allowed to use in a life-or-death situation.”
That’s the most offensive part of the entire brief. Illinois is not just banning hardware. It’s banning your autonomy, your judgment, and your right to make the most personal decision imaginable—how to defend your life and your loved ones.
This isn’t just a legal skirmish in one state. It’s a blueprint for what anti-gun states across the country may attempt next. If Illinois wins, you can bet New York, New Jersey, California, and others will follow suit—armed with the same twisted logic.
So to the rest of America: don’t tune this out just because it’s “Illinois’ problem.” Because if the courts buy what Illinois is selling, this fight is coming to your doorstep next.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. So, where is “self defense” stated? Militia, being military, means that all arms deemed suitable for military use SHOULD BE LEGAL!
so where does the 2a state self defense not included? where does it say “military weapons” are banned from use? you stooped reading at the comma i guess……
Wait…what about U.S. v. Miller, where the United States Supreme court HELD that short barrelled (i.e. sawed off) shotguns could be regulated because they were NOT appropriate for military use, implicitly holding that the 2A protects the right to keep and bear MILITARY arms.I’d bet dollars to donuts that the State’s brief fails to mention this important–AND BINDING legal precedent.
As you stated, Miller ruled that an SBS was not protected because it is not a militarily useful weapon. The “left” now wants the rest of the pie by having (supposedly) militarily useful arms also ruled as not protected by the Constitution. That way no arms are protected for use or ownership by the civilian population. The question remains: just what is it in the long term plans of Democrats that requires the civilian population to be disarmed?
That ruling by SCOTUS is a fallacy and based on false information. History shows the SBRs & SBSs have been used and still are used, not only by the US military, but many others. My brother, while serving in Vietnam, had a friend purchase him a Browning pump shotgun while on leave in Japan, he promptly cut it down for use in the jungle and other areas of close combat. All arms have been and are used by the military and that was the primary reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. It is NOT about gun control, it’s about citizen contro.
cops shoot those things, criminal shoot those guns both also shoot lots of rds so why should my hands be tied