1. Seventh Circuit’s July 9, 2026 Ruling
The Seventh Circuit issued a 2–1 opinion upholding Illinois’ statewide ban on:
- AR‑15–style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms
- Large‑capacity magazines
- Various regulated parts and accessories
The court held that these restrictions are “consistent with our regulatory tradition” and therefore permissible under the Second Amendment.
Judge St. Eve’s majority opinion emphasized:
- Assault weapons and large‑capacity magazines are strongly correlated with increased mass‑shooting casualties.
- Legislatures have historically regulated “particularly dangerous weapons.”
- Whether to adopt such regulations is a policy choice left to elected officials.
2. What Happened in the District Court?
Before this appeal, Judge Stephen McGlynn (S.D. Ill.) held after a full bench trial that much of PICA violated the Second Amendment and issued a statewide injunction. The Seventh Circuit reversed that injunction.
3. Consolidation With Other Cases
Harrel v. Raoul is part of a consolidated group including:
- Barnett v. Raoul
- Bevis v. Naperville (earlier preliminary‑injunction stage)
- Several related challenges from Southern Illinois
All were decided together in the July 9 opinion.
4. The Dissent
Chief Judge Brennan dissented, arguing:
- AR‑15s and their magazines are commonly owned for lawful self‑defense.
- Therefore, they fall within the Second Amendment’s core protections.
This dissent is important because it previews arguments likely to be raised before the Supreme Court.
5. Firearms Policy Coalition’s Reaction
FPC (a plaintiff in Harrel) called the ruling:
- “Atrocious”
- A “death rattle of the failed gun‑control era”
- Evidence of lower courts “contorting themselves” to avoid applying Bruen
FPC emphasized that SCOTUS’ grant of certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County signals that the Supreme Court intends to resolve the nationwide confusion over assault‑weapon bans.
What Happens Next?
1. Supreme Court Review Is Likely
Because SCOTUS has already agreed to hear the Cook County case—which raises the same legal questions—Harrel v. Raoul is almost certain to be:
- Petitioned for certiorari
- Either taken up directly
- Or held pending the outcome of Viramontes
2. The Illinois Ban Remains in Effect
Despite the earlier district‑court injunction, the Seventh Circuit’s reversal means:
- PICA is fully enforceable statewide
- Registration, possession restrictions, and magazine limits remain active
3. National Implications
The Seventh Circuit’s decision conflicts with:
- Several district‑court rulings nationwide
- The logic of Bruen as interpreted by other circuits
- The Supreme Court’s emerging interest in “common use” firearms
This makes Harrel v. Raoul a prime candidate for becoming part of a major Second Amendment ruling in 2027.
Summary Table
| Case Stage | Outcome | Key Reasoning |
| District Court (2024) | Ban struck down | AR‑15s & magazines protected under Bruen |
| Seventh Circuit (July 9, 2026) | Ban upheld (2–1) | Restrictions consistent with historical tradition; assault weapons linked to mass‑shooting severity |
| Dissent | Would strike ban | AR‑15s commonly owned for self‑defense |
| Next Step | Likely SCOTUS review | SCOTUS already taking Cook County case |