In a recent oral argument in Viramontes v. Cook County before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, an intense debate unfolded over Cook County’s “assault weapon” ban.

This ban is part of a larger legal battle challenging the restrictions on semi-automatic rifles. Mark Smith, host of Four Boxes Diner, offered a deep dive into the complexities of this case, exposing judicial reasoning that seemed both uninformed and dismissive of Second Amendment rights.

The argument in question centers on Cook County’s prohibition of certain firearms categorized as “assault weapons”—a term often applied to common semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. Mark highlighted the fact that no military issues purely semi-automatic rifles, underscoring that these civilian-owned firearms are predominantly used for lawful purposes, including home defense.

One concerning element of the hearing was Trump appointee Judge Amy St. Eve’s line of questioning, which suggested she might not fully grasp the basics of the case.

She expressed frustration over the absence of certain evidence in the district court record, though the plaintiffs’ attorney clarified that essential materials were indeed presented at that level. This misunderstanding led to questions about whether the court might base its decision on a skewed interpretation of the evidence, potentially embarrassing the panel if it overlooks what Second Amendment supporters consider fundamental information.

Mark pointed out that many of the court’s questions touched on expert reports, a request that seemed out of place. Historically, major Second Amendment cases like Heller and Bruen have been decided without such reports because they focused on constitutional interpretations rather than trial-based fact-finding.

Judge St. Eve’s approach may reflect her background as a trial judge, where detailed fact discovery is more common, but in the context of an appellate case, such a demand could signal a misplaced focus that may lead the court astray.

The 7th Circuit’s previous ruling in Bevis established a three-part test, which, according to Mark, the plaintiffs should easily satisfy in this case.

Under this standard, AR-15 rifles would be considered lawful arms:

• they are not military weapons,
• they are commonly used for self-defense,
• and they are rarely used in crimes compared to handguns.

Despite this, the court’s discussion revealed potential uncertainty about whether they would recognize the AR-15’s place as a legally protected firearm under the Second Amendment.

The ultimate stakes here are high. If the 7th Circuit issues a ruling that fails to recognize the AR-15’s legal status as a common and constitutionally protected firearm, it would likely face backlash from gun rights advocates and could add to a growing list of contentious decisions likely to reach the Supreme Court. Mark ended his analysis with cautious optimism, hoping the panel would “do the right thing” and uphold the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Yet, if they err, he made it clear that he would call out the court’s misstep.

This case is a crucial test of judicial interpretation in America’s ongoing struggle for Second Amendment rights. The decision, whatever it may be, will contribute to shaping the national landscape of firearm regulations and constitutional liberties for years to come.