On July 16, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case Barnett, concerning the constitutionality of an AR-15 ban under the Second Amendment. This ruling came shortly after the Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 30 for a related case, Viramontes v. Cook County, Arkansas, which involves the identical legal question of whether banning AR-15 rifles violates the Second Amendment.

The Seventh Circuit's decision in Barnett appeared to serve as a final statement supporting its prior ruling in Viramontes. The court conducted its own analysis seemingly without fully applying the binding precedent established by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which governs arms bans. The court focused on the two-step framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, finding the ban consistent under the second step despite Heller's guidance on historical traditions of firearms regulation.

The court also addressed historical analogies, noting that a pre-Reconstruction Texas case involving the use of a Bowie knife in unlawful homicide was not comparable to a ban on peaceable possession of firearms. The decision emphasized that because the AR-15 and its magazine have been overwhelmingly chosen by the public as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, other federal circuits are taking different approaches pending the Supreme Court's ruling. On July 1, the Ninth Circuit vacated submission in Miller v. Bonta, a case involving California's similar AR-15 ban, awaiting the Supreme Court's resolution. Conversely, on July 6, the Third Circuit invited supplemental briefs in its en banc proceeding involving Cheeseman and the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs against the Attorney General of New Jersey regarding that state's AR-15 ban.

The Supreme Court has also granted certiorari in Grant v. Higgins, which concerns a similar ban in Connecticut.

The Seventh Circuit criticized the "dangerous and unusual" test for firearm bans, arguing that it allows the government to ban new firearm designs simply because they are initially unusual, a position not adopted by the Supreme Court majority in Heller.

This cluster of cases highlights ongoing judicial debate over the scope of Second Amendment protections and the legality of AR-15 bans across the United States.

Sources