ILLINOIS — A federal legal filing has intensified debate over Illinois’ gun laws, asserting that the state’s assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
As part of a consolidated case under review, a legal brief outlines a constitutional challenge to the law, specifically targeting the prohibition on AR-15-style rifles and large-capacity magazines. The filing argues that these firearms and accessories are “in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons,” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
AR-15 Ban Criticized as Unconstitutional
The court document emphasizes that many of the banned semiautomatic rifles — such as the AR-15 — fall squarely within the legal definition of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. Citing prior rulings such as District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen, the argument centers on the original text and historical context of the Second Amendment.
“This inquiry begins with the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history,” the filing states.
The brief includes direct reference to the constitutional provision:
“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.”
The documents argue that under these principles, bans on commonly used firearms violate fundamental rights. The analysis appears in materials shared in the ongoing court case, which were made public via legal summaries circulating online, including court screenshots widely shared by gun rights advocates.
Magazine Restrictions Also Targeted
In addition to rifles, the brief argues that bans on “large-capacity magazines” — generally those exceeding 10 rounds — are also unconstitutional because they are commonly owned and used for lawful self-defense and sport.
“The Act violates the Second Amendment because it bans the possession of magazines and other firearm attachments that are in common use,” the brief states.
Justice Thomas is cited in support of the argument:
“Constitutional rights… implicitly protect those closely related acts necessary to their exercise.” (Luis v. United States, 2016)
The filing even draws a First Amendment analogy, citing Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue to argue that banning components of a protected activity can be just as unconstitutional as banning the core activity itself.
What’s Next for Illinois Gun Law
While the assault weapons and magazine ban remains in effect, the current case could result in major legal precedent. A ruling against the law would have implications not only for Illinois, but for every other state with similar restrictions.
Gun rights advocates view the challenge as a pivotal test of post-Bruen constitutional standards, while supporters of the ban maintain it is essential for public safety and reducing mass shootings.
The court has yet to issue a ruling on the consolidated challenge, but legal analysts expect further updates by late summer.
Do you believe Illinois’ gun ban protects public safety or violates constitutional rights?
Sound off at ChicagoSuburbanFamily.com and join the statewide debate.
