Scribd

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 23-1353 R

OBERT

B

EVIS

,

et al.

,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

,

v.

C

ITY OF

N

APERVILLE

,

I

LLINOIS

and

J

ASON

A

RRES

,

Defendants-Appellees

,

and

T

HE

S

TATE OF

I

LLINOIS

,

Intervening Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:22-cv-04775 —

Virginia M. Kendall

,

Judge

.

___________________

No. 23-1793

J

AVIER

H

ERRERA

,

Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v.

K

WAME

R

AOUL

,

et al.

,

Defendants-Appellees

.

Case: 23-1353 Document: 170 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pages: 95

2 Nos. 23-1353

et al.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:23-cv-00532 —

Lindsay C. Jenkins

,

Judge

.

___________________ No. 23-1825

1

C

ALEB

B

ARNETT

,

et al.

,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

,

v.

K

WAME

R

AOUL

and B

RENDAN

F.

K

ELLY

,

Defendants-Appellants

. ____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 3:23-cv-00209-SPM —

Stephen P. McGlynn

,

Judge

.

____________________ A

RGUED

J

UNE

29,

2023

—

D

ECIDED

N

OVEMBER

3,

2023 ____________________ Before E

ASTERBROOK

, W

OOD

, and B

RENNAN

,

Circuit Judges

. W

OOD

,

Circuit Judge

. The Second Amendment to the Con-stitution recognizes an individual right to “keep and bear Arms.” Of that there can be no doubt, in the wake of the

1

Consolidated with No. 23-1826,

Harrel v. Raoul

(S.D. Ill. No. 3:23-cv-00141-SPM); No. 23-1827,

Langley v. Kelly

(S.D. Ill. No. 3:23-cv-00192-SPM); and No. 23-1828,

Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois

, et al.

v. Pritzker

(S.D. Ill. No. 3:23-cv-00215-SPM).


Nos. 23-1353

et al.

3

Supreme Court’s decisions in

District of Columbia v. Heller

, 554 U.S. 570 (2008);

McDonald v. City of Chicago

, 561 U.S. 742 (2010);

Caetano v.

Massachuses

, 577 U.S. 411 (2016) (

per cu-riam

); and

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v.

Bruen

, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). But as we know from long experience with other fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech, the right peaceably to assemble, the right to vote, and the right to free exercise of religion, even the most important personal freedoms have their limits. Government may punish a delib-

erately false fire alarm; it may condition free assembly on the

issuance of a permit; it may require voters to present a valid

identification card; and it may punish child abuse even if it is

done in the name of religion. The right enshrined in the Sec-

ond Amendment is no different.

The present cases, which we have consolidated for dispo-sition, relate to the types of “Arms” that are covered by the Second Amendment.

2

This presents a line-drawing problem. Everyone can agree that a personal handgun, used for self-defense, is one of those Arms that law-abiding citizens must be free to “keep and bear.” Everyone can also agree, we hope, that a nuclear weapon such as the now-retired M388 Davy

Crocke system

, with its 51-pound W54 warhead, can be re-served for the military, even though it is light enough for one person to carry.

3

Many weapons, however, lie between these

2

For ease of exposition, we will use the term Arms to refer to those weapons that fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

3

See Matthew Seelinger,

The M28/M29 Davy Crockett Nuclear Weapon System

, T

HE

A

RMY

H

ISTORICAL

F

OUNDATION

, https://armyhistory.org/the-m28m29-davy-crockett-nuclear-weapon-system/; see also Jeff Schogol,

The Story of the ‘Davy Crockett,

’ a

Nuclear Recoilless Rifle Once Fielded by the
