The Second Amendment Foundation and its litigation partners have submitted their opening brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, officially kicking off arguments in a pair of major challenges targeting local and state assault weapons bans.
The legal action follows the high court’s decision on June 30 to grant review in two separate lawsuits: Viramontes v. Cook County, arising from Illinois, and Grant v. Higgins, which challenges state-level statutes in Connecticut. Both cases contest regulatory restrictions that prohibit the sale and possession of certain semiautomatic long guns, including the widely distributed AR-15 platform.
Central to both disputes is whether individual states or municipal authorities possess the constitutional leeway under the Second Amendment to implement categorical bans on an entire category of firearms that are widely owned across the country. In their filings, attorneys for the challengers argue that existing high court precedent prevents governments from outlawing firearms that fall under standard civilian use.
“Whatever common use may mean at the margins, AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles fit squarely within that category,” the brief states. “Because ‘millions of Americans own AR-15s and…a significant majority of the States allow for possession of those rifles,’ it follows that they ‘are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’ A ‘categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.’”
Gun rights advocates behind the filing contend that decisions regarding firearm selection belong to individual citizens rather than legislative bodies.
“Assault weapons bans represent one of the largest and most pernicious gun rights issues facing Americans,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second Amendment demands that it is ‘the People’ who get to choose what firearm is best suited to their lawful needs, not an ideologue legislator. Modern semi-automatic rifles are the overwhelming choice of Americans for all sorts of reasons – they are easy to shoot, mechanically accurate, modular and ergonomically adaptable. As a result, Americans from all walks of life choose these firearms to defend their families and their homes. Our brief today lays out exactly why politicians who hide behind their own armed security do not have the authority to ban these firearms.”
The filing comes on the heels of the foundation marking 52 years since its establishment. Leadership at the organization expressed high expectations for the eventual ruling, framing the litigation as a potential landmark for future interpretations of firearms law.
“Reckoning day for lawmakers in Illinois, Connecticut, and elsewhere across the country, is not far away and it’s high time they are finally put in their place for infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president. “Throughout SAF’s more than 50-year history, we have fought to ensure Americans could fully exercise their Second Amendment rights, and we are optimistic this case will be a giant leap forward for the right to keep and bear arms. The ruling in this lawsuit will affect generations of lawful gun owners for years to come, and we are hopeful the Supreme Court will deposit these unconstitutional bans where they belong – in the wastebin of history.”
The Supreme Court is expected to schedule oral arguments for the consolidated disputes in the coming months, with a final ruling anticipated before the conclusion of the court’s term.
READ: Moody Backs Florida Aerospace Workers And Technical Workforce Expansion
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
