On July 9, the Seventh Circuit decided Barnett v. Raoul, upholding Illinois' ban on AR-15 rifles. Maybe it hadn't received the memo that the Supreme Court granted cert on June 30 on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Viramontes v. Cook County, involving the identical issue of whether an AR-15 ban violates the Second Amendment? Deciding Barnett gives the appearance of the Seventh Circuit filing the equivalent of an amicus brief in support of its prior decision in Viramontes. (Cert was also granted in Grant v. Higgins, which concerns Connecticut's similar ban, see my post here.)
While always ready to uphold any restriction on Second Amendment rights, on July 1 the Ninth Circuit vacated submission in Miller v. Bonta, involving California's similar ban, pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the issue. By contrast, the Third Circuit on July 6 invited supplemental briefs to be filed in its en banc proceeding of Cheeseman and Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, both versus Attorney General of New Jersey, regarding New Jersey's AR-15 ban. The briefs would address the effect of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Wolford and Hemani. If the court finds the New Jersey law unconstitutional, it will give the Supreme Court a contrasting view to the other appellate decisions that have uniformly upheld the bans.
A look at Barnett on the merits exhibits a doubling down of questionable premises. U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McGlynn oversaw a four-day bench trial and held that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment, but the Court of Appeals rejected the lower court's factual and legal conclusions. What is amusing (perhaps shocking) is that it was the Court of Appeals that had previously instructed the district court to hold a trial on various issues, but then the same Court of Appeals rejected the lower court's findings. This raises the question of what was the point of the trial?
