A panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments regarding Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) law, which banned feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds and most semi-automatic long guns, such as the popular AR-15.
This hearing was the second time a PICA case reached the appeals court. The first time it reached the Circuit Court, it was remanded back down to the district level, and a preliminary injunction against the law was blocked. This time, the state appealed a summary judgment issued by a District Court judge in Barnett v. Raoul. The panel seemed more open to revisiting the idea of knocking down the law since the case was first heard.
The court first heard from the attorney for Illinois. Illinois Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Hunger represented the state.
Ms. Hunger started her argument by stating that civilian-owned AR-15s and M-16s/M4s are basically the same. Most civilian-owned AR-15s are semi-automatic only, and M-16s/M4s are select fire, allowing the users to fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger. According to Hunger, since the military typically uses the semi-automatic setting, the automatic setting is often irrelevant.
Judge Amy St. Eve cut her off and stated that she is facing an uphill battle. According to the judge, a de novo review is not applicable in this case because District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn found the AR-15 and M4 to be distinct. A de novo review is a re-examination of a previous decision, giving no deference or presumption of correctness to the lower court’s ruling. Judge St. Eve asked Hunger if the state was waiving the legislative argument, and she replied that they were not, as the original Circuit Court decision in Bevis requires facts. Judge St. Eve once again pushed back on the legislative argument.
Ms. Hunger then pivoted to whether the items banned by the law are useful in self-defense. She tackled magazine restrictions first, stating that the state’s 10-round limit is constitutional because, according to her, a person only needs 2.2 rounds for self-defense.
She dismissed the plaintiffs’ expert witness testimony. Judge St. Eve said she was reweighing the expert witnesses. Judge Michael Brennan added that Hunger was going to face an uphill battle showing that he believed the expert witnesses. Ms. Hunger said she is not trying to reweigh the expert witnesses.
Ms. Hunger relied on Lucy Allen’s report that showed rifles are rarely used for self-defense outside the home. Judge St. Eve asked her if the data could be off because they are banned, and Hunger seemed to admit that might be the case. Ms. Hunger says that the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses are in the business of teaching people how to defend themselves with AR-15s, seemly insinuating they are testifying the way they did to protect their businesses. Judge Brennen spoke up and said he was struggling to understand why it was not reweighing the experts’ witnesses. Ms. Hunger was critical of the plaintiffs for not hiring a historian.
Judge Brennen asked for a founding-era example of an entire class of arms being prohibited. Ms. Hunger said there was one. She referenced a 1771 ban on possession of trap guns in New Jersey.
Later, plaintiffs’ attorney Thomas Magg would point out that trap guns were boobie traps designed to be set up in unoccupied buildings and not used as a bearable arm. She then brings up Bowie knife bans, but attorney Erin Murphy would later point out that these were bans on the concealed carrying of Bowie knives, not on the possession or even the carrying of the items. Judge Brennen stated there is trouble for the state on the second step of the “how and why” of those bans. Ms Murphy pushed back and noted that the plaintiffs didn’t present any historical analogues of their own, although that burden solely falls to the state.
In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that weapons that are dangerous and unusual are not protected under the Second Amendment, but did rule that firearms in common use are protected. To most, that means guns in common use can not be banned. Ms. Hunger took a different approach, claiming that the Second Amendment protects only weapons that are not dangerous and unusual, but does not protect all guns that are in common use. She then tried to bring up mass shootings, but was cut off by Judge Brennen, who stated mass shootings have been happening for 100 years, and nothing has changed with the AR-15 technology in 30 years. Ms. Hunger concluded by asking the court to rule only on the rifle issue if it finds in favor of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were up next. Ms. Murphy argued for the plaintiffs. Shortly after beginning, she was cut off by Judge Frank Easterbrook, who said the District Court hadn’t answered everything he said they needed to. The Ronald Reagan appointee is known for his anti-gun rulings. Ms. Murphy attacked the state’s position that magazines are not protected arms by pointing out that magazines are essential for a firearm to work.
Judge Brennon asked Murphy about the constitutionality of the registration requirement of PICA, which the state claims is severable from the rest of the law. Ms. Murphy says she doesn’t think it could stand because the registration was intended to grandfather AR-15s previously owned by state residents. If the law is struck down, the purpose of the registry is dead.
Judge Easterbrook asked about Trump v. CASA. That case dealt with nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court ruled that courts could not issue nationwide injunctions. This question is puzzling because Barnett does not deal with an injunction. It is an appeal of a summary judgment. At no point was there ever any talk of a nationwide injunction. At most, it was a state-level injunction, which the referenced case doesn’t deal with at all.
Thomas Magg was up next. He immediately attacked the trap gun argument, pointing out that trap guns were boobie traps meant to maim or kill someone breaking into an unoccupied building, and not guns that people carried or used like modern AR-15s. He would go through the state’s arguments one by one and dismantle them, including the 20th-century laws the state referenced in their briefs.
Harmeet Dhillon would argue on behalf of the United States Government. Ms. Dhillon is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. Dhillon vehemently opposes an “assault weapons” ban and said that the DOJ disagrees with the Court in Bevis.
Ms. Dhillon says the clues are there that the Supreme Court believes AR-15s are presumptively legal.
She also pushed back against the militaristic test. It seems Dhillon and the DOJ think that the Second Amendment protects military arms, including the AR-15. She refused to give any ground to anti-gun arguments.
This is our position. Proud to say it in court. https://t.co/mgCj5WJks7
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) September 22, 2025
Ms. Murphy’s rebuttal was short. She said there was a little confusion since the statute didn’t deal with the rate of fire or lethality.
The case went well for the plaintiffs, and multiple legal minds AmmoLand News spoke with all agreed that it appears the plaintiffs will take home a victory, although most believe Judge Easterbrook will find in favor of the defendants.
Chief Supreme Court Justice Warns Politicians About Ignoring the Courts
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
How nice to hear that someone in the Civil rights division of DOJ is actually fighting for 2A rights