The U.S. Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear the question gun owners have been waiting years to see answered: whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15.
For Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the reaction was simple.
“Finally!”
The Court granted review in two major Second Amendment cases: Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut’s ban, and Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The cases will be consolidated, putting one of the most important unresolved Second Amendment questions directly before the justices.
Supreme Court Takes the AR-15 Ban Question
That question is straightforward. Can the government ban rifles that are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, or are those rifles protected “arms” under the Constitution?
Gun owners have been watching the high court kick this can down the road time after time.
The case of Grant v. Higgins had been distributed for conference 17 times since January, with no action until now. The other case, known as Viramontes v. Cook County, had been distributed 22 times since last November. The history of these distributions has been tracked by the popular SCOTUSblog for months.
Two Major Rifle Ban Cases Will Be Heard Together
Grant v. Higgins is a SAF case out of Connecticut, originally known as Grant v. Lamont, was filed by SAF, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens in September 2022, three months after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen which, according to the original complaint, “clarified the proper legal standard under which courts must analyze Second Amendment cases.”
Viramontes v. Cook County is a case challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Illinois. SAF is joined in this case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. This case was originally filed in August 2021. At the time this case was filed, Gottlieb said in a statement to the media, “The guns on the ban list are commonly owned and used all over the country for all kinds of legitimate purposes including hunting, target shooting, competition, predator control and recreation. Citizens have a right to own such firearms, and to ban them is an affront to the Constitution.”
The history of both cases underscores the sluggishness of movement of Second Amendment cases through the federal courts.
SAF: “A Right Delayed Is a Right Denied”
Upon hearing that both cases have been granted high court review, the SAF team was elated. Gottlieb advised Ammoland News that the cases will be consolidated.
“We are very excited that SCOTUS will hear our two very important Second Amendment Foundation cases,” Gottlieb said. “These gun bans should have been overturned years ago. A right delayed is a right denied.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added in a statement to the press, “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”
Bill Sack, SAF’s senior director of Legal Operations, said via email, “The Second Amendment Foundation is thrilled the Supreme Court has just now agreed to take two of our Assault Weapons Ban challenges, Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County. Both of these cases provide the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to roundly reject the categorical bans on commonly owned firearms that Cook County, Illinois, Connecticut, and other gun-control happy jurisdictions around the country have adopted.”
Millions of Commonly Owned Rifles Are at Stake
Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which estimates there are “over 32 million in circulation,” declared in a statement, “these challenges by the Supreme Court is long overdue.”
While it is never clear how the Supreme Court will decide any case, it is not likely the justices would agree to hear these cases if they simply intended to maintain the current status quo.
There was already a strong hint about how the national media may be covering the combined cases. NBC News reported Tuesday, “The measures in question ban what are described by gun violence protection advocates as “assault weapons,” which include AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles.
“AR-15-style weapons have been used in multiple high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, as well as the 2022 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two teachers were killed.”
The Supreme Court will convene for its fall session on the first Monday of October. Amy Howe, writing at SCOTUSblog, predicted oral arguments will be heard sometime in the fall.
Why the US Supreme Court Skipped AR-15s This Term — And Why It’s Coming
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
We’ve been waiting for this a long time. While the last two 2nd Amendment case decisions are encouraging, I suddenly find myself wary given the court’s recent decision regarding birthright citizenship. It “should” be a cut & dry case, but they always somehow manage to screw up. At least they’re finally going to address it. I personally wish they would have addressed the magazine bans first, since magazines are universal across multiple platforms, but if they’re taking on a so-called “assault weapon” ban, then maybe they’ll finally get around to magazines also?
Found this info on the web, Maybe Amy Comey-Barrett will bring a positive outcome to these cases. With just a few years on the bench, Judge Barrett has already developed a surprisingly deep record on guns and the Second Amendment. These cases suggest a special solicitude for gun owners and users—and not just for the paradigmatic “law-abiding, responsible” ones. Indeed, in her Second Amendment and criminal law cases, she has several times sided in favor of someone who broke the law against the government’s attempts to disarm, seize, or imprison them for an extended amount of time. These decisions demonstrate… Read more »
About frigging time! SCOTUS needs to issue a broad, unassailable ruling that Gov has no authority to ban arms, no matter what type of bearable arms, from M4’s to AR15’s, swords to Switchblades, brass knuckles to grenades. “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” Wilson v. State, 33… Read more »
Progressive New Left enemies of liberty are already scheming how to circumvent their impending loss on the modern sporting rifle bans by shifting focus to features and accessories bans. They will simply require you to install silly features like the California paddle in lieu of a pistol grip or ban such features as quick magazine releases. These freaks spend their lives and fortunes attempting to impede the natural law based liberties we all enjoy. Be prepared for more battles in the future.
Ok, this does not fit, but is worthy of knowing: On this day in 1898, Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders made their famous charge up San Juan Hill in Cuba. The volunteer cavalry had been raised and drilled in San Antonio, and many of its troopers were Texas cowboys and Rangers.
Why aren’t they hearing Duncan v Bonta and Miller v Becerra? Those two wonderful and wise decisions from Saint Benitez on Commiefornia’s unconstitutional laws could simply be quoted verbatim by SCOTUS in their decision.
Fscrotus!
It should be “Does the subject fall within the 2A? if so, the government must prove that its statute is within the traditional statutory constraints at the time of the founding fathers. That is it! The S. Court, however, has four women that know nothing about firearms and at least one man betrayer.
So even something this simple the S. Ct. can screw up.
Wonder which way old Sotomayor might vote?
Oh, and now the great moment has arrived. Now we People can just sit back and relax while our justice system is on autopilot. There are many comments here about the potential outcome of this case.
But why are we so engaged with something that we have little control over? Ok, we vote. Ok, we obey the law. Ok, we make comments.
But when are we going to start exercising these rights? That is the only method we can depend on. That is to depend on ourselves.
HLB