The Justice Department has sued Washington, D.C., arguing the city's prohibition on registering firearms labeled as "assault weapons" violates the Second Amendment because it effectively bans weapons "in common use" for lawful purposes. Filed under 34 U.S.C. §12601 by a new Second Amendment Section in the Civil Rights Division, the complaint cites Heller and Bruen and highlights data on widespread AR-15 ownership. Federal courts are split on whether feature- or model-based bans meet Bruen's historical-analog test, and the issue may reach the Supreme Court for final resolution.
DOJ Sues D.C., Saying Assault-Weapon Registration Ban Violates Second Amendment
The DOJ Assails D.C.'s 'Assault Weapon' Ban As an Arbitrary, Historically Ungrounded Gun Law
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arguing that Washington, D.C.'s policy barring registration of firearms classified as "assault weapons" violates the Second Amendment. Under D.C. law, a firearm must be registered to be lawfully owned, and any gun that meets the local definition of an "assault weapon" cannot be registered. The Justice Department contends that this effectively amounts to a categorical ban on weapons that are "commonly used" for lawful purposes such as self-defense.
Legal Basis of the Case
The complaint was filed under 34 U.S.C. §12601 by a newly created Second Amendment Section within the Civil Rights Division. That statute authorizes the attorney general to bring civil actions to address a pattern or practice by a law-enforcement agency that "deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States," and to seek equitable and declaratory relief.
Key Arguments and Precedents
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the Civil Rights Division, argues the District's policy deprives residents of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller established that the Second Amendment protects possession of firearms "in common use" for lawful purposes such as home self-defense, and it held that a total handgun ban in the home was unconstitutional.
The complaint also relies on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which directs courts to assess modern gun regulations against the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under Bruen, if a challenged restriction falls within the Second Amendment's plain text, the government must show the law is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition"—typically by pointing to relevant analogs from the past.
Common-Use And Feature-Based Bans
The Justice Department emphasizes that many firearms covered by D.C.'s statute—specifically certain AR-15–style rifles and other so-called "modern sporting rifles"—are widely owned for lawful purposes. The complaint cites industry and ownership data: more than 30 million modern sporting rifles have been sold in the U.S. since 1990, and an estimated 20–24 million Americans have owned AR-15–style rifles for activities such as home defense, hunting, and target shooting. The Supreme Court has recently described the AR-15 as one of the most popular rifles in the country.
D.C.'s definition of an "assault weapon" includes a list of named models and feature-based criteria: for example, a semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines is designated an assault weapon if it has a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or adjustable stock, or a flash suppressor. The complaint argues these appearance- or accessory-based distinctions are superficial and do not reflect whether a firearm is in "common use" or suitable for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.
How Courts Have Addressed Similar Bans
Recent federal decisions show a split among courts about how Bruen applies to modern assault-weapon prohibitions. U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan found New Jersey's AR-15 ban to be a "total prohibition" on a commonly used home-defense firearm and therefore inconsistent with Heller. By contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland's AR-15 ban, a decision that drew a lengthy dissent from Judge Julius Richardson, who argued the majority improperly discounted the self-defense uses and advantages of such rifles.
In Illinois, U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn issued a 168-page opinion granting a permanent injunction against that state's assault-weapon ban, concluding the historical analogs the state cited were not sufficiently similar in scope or purpose to justify a modern categorical ban under Bruen. McGlynn noted that only a small fraction of cited historical statutes entirely restricted whole classes of weapons, while most analogs addressed distinct conduct like concealed carry, brandishing, or discharge restrictions.
Potential Path to the Supreme Court
The D.C. case will test how lower courts apply Bruen's historical-analog framework to feature- and model-based bans. Several current Supreme Court justices—including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—have signaled receptiveness to the argument that popular modern rifles may fall within Second Amendment protection, and Kavanaugh has urged the Court to resolve circuit splits on whether AR-15–style rifles are "in common use."
The Justice Department's filing sets the stage for renewed litigation over whether sweeping modern bans on popularly owned firearms can be reconciled with the Nation's constitutional history and recent Supreme Court precedent.
What’s Next: The District will defend its law in court; the case could produce further appellate rulings and, potentially, Supreme Court review that would resolve how Bruen applies to contemporary assault-weapon prohibitions.
