United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1353 ROBERT BEVIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS and JASON ARRES, Defendants-Appellees,

and THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 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 JAVIER HERRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KWAME RAOUL, et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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 CALEB BARNETT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. KWAME RAOUL and BRENDAN F. KELLY, 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. ____________________

ARGUED JUNE 29, 2023 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 3, 2023 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, WOOD, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. WOOD, 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. Massachusetts, 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 Crockett 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