## Facts

- In 2013, the City of Highland Park, Illinois enacted an ordinance prohibiting possession of defined “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” (magazines accepting more than ten rounds).
- The ordinance defined “assault weapon” to include semiautomatic firearms capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine and having specified features (e.g., pistol-grip configurations, folding/telescoping/thumbhole stocks, forward grips, barrel shrouds, muzzle brakes/compensators) and also listed certain models (including AR-15 and AK-47 variants).
- The ordinance provided a compliance period for owners to remove, disable, or surrender covered items; violations were subject to criminal penalties.
- A city resident and a gun-rights association sued, alleging the ordinance violated the Second Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) under District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
- The district court entered judgment for the City, denying injunctive relief; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal ban on possession of certain semiautomatic “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment as interpreted in Heller and McDonald.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the City and upheld the ordinance against the Second Amendment challenge.
- The court declined to resolve the case by choosing a formal tier of scrutiny, instead evaluating (1) whether the regulation targets weapons historically subject to regulation and (2) whether residents retain adequate alternative means of armed self-defense.
- The court accepted that the banned firearms and magazines can be used for lawful self-defense but held the Second Amendment does not guarantee access to a citizen’s preferred arms if other effective options remain available.
- The court treated questions about comparative defensive advantage and crime policy as primarily legislative, and credited local government interests in reducing risks associated with mass shootings and increasing public safety.
- A dissent argued the ordinance improperly banned commonly possessed arms used for lawful purposes and therefore conflicted with Heller’s protection of arms “in common use.”

## Legal Principles

- The Second Amendment permits regulation of certain categories of weapons, consistent with Heller’s recognition that the right is not unlimited and that “dangerous and unusual” weapons may be restricted.
- A court may assess a firearm restriction by asking whether it fits within historical limits on arms regulation and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means for self-defense, rather than selecting strict or intermediate scrutiny.
- Widespread ownership and some lawful self-defense utility do not necessarily render a weapon immune from regulation when other firearms remain available for lawful defense.
- Legislative bodies may receive substantial latitude to address public safety risks associated with particular weapons and magazine capacities, even when empirical outcomes are contested.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Highland Park’s prohibition on possession of defined semiautomatic “assault weapons” and magazines over ten rounds did not violate the Second Amendment because residents retained other effective options for self-defense and the City could regulate weapons it deemed to pose heightened public-safety risks.


Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015)