1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Illinois's ban on AR-15 style firearms. The ruling came days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the same ban.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when AmmoLand reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 1 d ago from AmmoLand. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Heller established an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense. Caetano held protection reaches arms not existing at the founding, so a weapon is not excluded for being unusual or uncommon then. Bruen requires the government to justify a ban by historical tradition. The Court agreed to decide whether AR-15s are protected arms under that test, so the Seventh Circuit ruling is not the last word.
District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The right is not unlimited: the Court noted that longstanding prohibitions (e.g., possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying in sensitive places, conditions on commercial sale) remain presumptively lawful. D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home and its requirement that lawful firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
The Patriot Watch Daily Brief
Every morning. The stories that matter, first — straight to your inbox. Free.
