Harrel v. Raoul: FPC and SAF Challenge to PICA

Harrel v. Raoul is a constitutional challenge to the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) brought by plaintiffs Dane Harrel and others with the support of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA). The case applies the Supreme Court's Bruen framework to argue that Illinois's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment.^[1]

Parties and Legal Strategy

The Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation are two of the most active national organizations challenging firearms regulations in the post-Bruen landscape. FPC has pursued an aggressive litigation strategy, filing suits in multiple states and federal circuits to establish precedent that the Second Amendment protects commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines. SAF, founded by Alan Gottlieb, has similarly focused on Second Amendment litigation as a primary strategy for expanding firearms rights.^[1]

The Illinois State Rifle Association, the state's NRA affiliate, provides local expertise and standing to the challenge. Together, these organizations have advanced arguments that PICA's assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions cannot survive the historical-tradition test required by Bruen.

Key Arguments

The plaintiffs in Harrel argue that the firearms banned under PICA -- including AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles -- are among the most commonly owned firearms in the United States. Industry data estimates that there are more than 24 million AR-15-style rifles in civilian hands nationwide. Under the Bruen framework, if a firearm is in "common use" for lawful purposes, it is presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. The government must then demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.^[1]

FPC and SAF have also challenged the magazine capacity limits, arguing that magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds are standard equipment for the most popular firearms in America and that there is no historical precedent for limiting the capacity of arms that individuals may possess. The plaintiffs note that the standard-issue magazine for a full-size handgun typically holds between 15 and 17 rounds, and that standard AR-15 magazines hold 30 rounds -- making the PICA limits a prohibition on standard-capacity magazines rather than a restriction on an unusual accessory.^[2]

Consolidation at the Seventh Circuit

Harrel v. Raoul has been consolidated with Bevis v. City of Naperville and other related PICA challenges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The consolidation ensures that all major constitutional challenges to the assault weapons ban will be resolved in a single appellate proceeding. This also means that the legal arguments advanced by FPC and SAF in Harrel will be considered alongside those raised by the NRA in Barnett v. Raoul and by other plaintiffs in the companion cases.^[3]

The consolidated proceeding also includes Credit River Township v. Raoul, which raises similar constitutional arguments on behalf of a different set of plaintiffs. By grouping these cases, the Seventh Circuit avoids the possibility of issuing conflicting rulings on the same legal questions and ensures a comprehensive review of all arguments presented both for and against the ban. The consolidation also means that the various legal theories advanced by FPC, SAF, the NRA, and individual plaintiffs will all be evaluated together, giving the court a complete picture of the constitutional arguments.

DOJ Amicus Brief Supporting Plaintiffs

On June 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs in the consolidated PICA challenges. The brief argued that the firearms banned under PICA are in common use for lawful purposes and that Illinois failed to identify a historical tradition of analogous firearms regulation as required by Bruen. The DOJ contended that states cannot categorically ban entire classes of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans.

The filing was the first time the federal government argued against a state assault weapons ban. The DOJ participated in the September 22, 2025 oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, giving the challengers a significant co-advocate before the court. The brief adds institutional weight to the plaintiffs' position that PICA cannot survive constitutional scrutiny under Bruen.^[4]

Current Status

Oral argument took place on September 22, 2025, as part of the consolidated Seventh Circuit proceeding. A decision is pending as of May 2026. The outcome will have implications beyond Illinois, as other federal circuits are considering similar challenges to assault weapons bans in states such as Maryland, New Jersey, and California. FPC has filed similar suits in several of those jurisdictions, making the Seventh Circuit's ruling a potential building block for its broader national litigation strategy.^[1]