Seventh Circuit Equates AR-15 to Historic Bowie Knife in Major Ruling
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a decision that treats the AR-15 the same way courts historically treated the Bowie knife—as a weapon common enough to warrant regulation. New Jersey prosecutors seized on this ruling and filed a supplemental brief in the Third Circuit to defend the state's ban on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, borrowing the Seventh Circuit's historical comparison as legal cover.
Key Details
The Seventh Circuit's Bowie knife comparison: The court argued that if 19th-century governments could regulate the Bowie knife as a common arm, modern governments can regulate the AR-15 under the same constitutional logic.
New Jersey's move: State prosecutors filed a supplemental brief in an active Third Circuit lawsuit challenging New Jersey's assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans, directly citing the Seventh Circuit's Bowie knife reasoning.
The practical implication: If the Third Circuit accepts this argument, it could uphold New Jersey's bans and create a circuit split with other courts interpreting the Second Amendment's "arms in common use" standard.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This ruling threatens the cornerstone of modern Second Amendment defense. Since DC v. Heller, gun owners have won cases by arguing that the AR-15 is protected as an "arm in common use." The Seventh Circuit just flipped that logic: common use equals regulable. If the Third Circuit adopts this frame, gun owners in New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania face uphill battles defending rifles and standard-capacity magazines. More broadly, this creates a dangerous precedent in a court system that will eventually reach the Supreme Court. Competitors, hunters, and self-defense advocates in the Northeast need to understand that the legal ground beneath them has shifted.
DownRange Analysis
The Seventh Circuit's Bowie knife comparison is historically sloppy and constitutionally dangerous. The Bowie knife was never the subject of a federal constitutional challenge; comparing it to the AR-15 ignores that Bruen explicitly requires historical parallels to laws governing the *same category* of arms. A folding blade isn't a rifle. More importantly, this reasoning inverts Heller's "common use" protection into a regulatory license. Gun owners should expect this logic to spread through other circuits. The Third Circuit's acceptance of this brief signals judges willing to work backward from their preferred policy outcome. Litigation strategy should now focus on distinguishing Bruen's historical test from this kitchen-sink analogy approach.
