Arie Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902

Background

Highland Park, IL enacted an ordinance (§136.005) banning possession of "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines (>10 rounds); certain models (e.g., AR-15, AK-47) named.
Plaintiffs (Arie Friedman and ISRA members) are Highland Park residents who owned banned weapons before the ordinance and seek to possess them for home defense; they challenged the ordinance as violating the Second Amendment via Heller and McDonald.
The district court enjoined enforcement; the Seventh Circuit panel considered whether the ordinance is consistent with the Second Amendment.
The majority framed the inquiry around historical tradition, whether banned arms are "dangerous and unusual," whether residents retain adequate means for self-defense, and federalism/legislative deference.
The majority affirmed the ban as permissible regulation within Heller/McDonald limits; a dissent argued the ban infringes core home-defense rights and would fail strict scrutiny.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ordinance prohibits arms protected by the Second Amendment	Friedman: AR-type rifles and large magazines are commonly owned for lawful purposes and thus protected for home defense	Highland Park: these weapons are akin to military-grade or "dangerous and unusual" arms and may be regulated/banned	Majority: ordinance regulates weapons not in common use in 1791 and permissible; affirmed enforcement ban
How to assess scope of Second Amendment protection (historical test v. functional/common-use test)	Plaintiffs: apply "common use" test; modern prevalence shows protection	City: rely on historical tradition and dangerousness; courts may consider militia relation and public-safety effects	Majority: historical/contextual inquiry plus whether residents retain adequate means of self-defense; did not adopt a single rigid test
Standard of review for weapons bans affecting home-defense	Plaintiffs (dissent): core home-defense rights are fundamental and warrant strict scrutiny; total ban is not least restrictive	City: legislative judgment and empirical facts about public safety justify regulation; courts should defer and allow intermediate or categorical limits	Majority: declined to pick strict scrutiny; used a pragmatic approach assessing historical analogues and whether adequate self-defense options remain; upheld ordinance
Whether local governments may experiment with firearm regulations or only states/federal government	Plaintiffs: local ban impermissibly restricts constitutional right regardless of local experimentation	City: localities may regulate within constitutional limits and tailor laws to local risks; federalism supports diversity	Majority: federalism permits local experimentation within Heller/McDonald limits; affirmed local ordinance

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, especially in the home, but excludes "dangerous and unusual" weapons)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (applies Heller's individual Second Amendment right against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Second Amendment does not protect weapons not having a reasonable relationship to militia efficiency)
United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses categorical limits and post-Heller analysis)
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (framework for determining whether regulated activity falls within Second Amendment scope)
Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (upheld similar assault-weapons restrictions under intermediate scrutiny)
Fyock v. Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2015) (upheld ban on large-capacity magazines)
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (post-Heller analysis of burden-shifting and intermediate scrutiny approaches)