The Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases over the legality of sweeping “assault weapons” bans later this year, and the local governments at the center of the lawsuits are urging the high court this week to let them ban the firearms they claim are responsible for the “most tragic and frightening crimes.”
The high court will hear the consolidated cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, challenging the “assault weapons” bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut, respectively, in December. The bans at the center of the consolidated case outlaw the purchase of AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles, with the justices set to rule on whether those bans violate the Second or 14th amendments. Both local governments filed their briefs to the Supreme Court this week, emphasizing their arguments that the bans are lawful because the AR-15 and similar weapons are not ordinary firearms.
“The Framers did not intend to permit the possession or use of ‘any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,'” Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke said in the county’s brief to the high court. “This principle is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history, which is replete with common-sense regulations of weapons that are exceptionally dangerous, lethal, and prone to misuse.”
“When weapons are introduced into society that have the capability to perpetrate some of our most tragic and frightening crimes, from mass shootings to assassination attempts, democratically elected legislators are permitted to respond with appropriate regulation,” O’Neill Burke added, later pointing to the fact that an AR-15 was used in the July 2024 assassination attempt against President Donald Trump.
The Cook County brief also emphasized the AR-15’s “military features,” as part of the argument that the firearms covered under the ban are “offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality and are not customarily used for self-defense,” and therefore not protected under the Second Amendment.
There are as many as 30 million AR-15s and similar rifles in circulation in the U.S., according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Elizabeth Prelogar, a lawyer representing Connecticut officials and former U.S. solicitor general under the Biden administration, wrote for the state’s brief that the weapons covered under the ban are “distinctively capable of swiftly inflicting fatal injuries on a scale similar to its military counterpart, the M-16.” Prelogar also mentioned various infamous mass shootings during which the AR-15 was used by gunmen, opening with discussing the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which killed 20 students and six school faculty.
“That capacity for lethality comes from a mix of features that permit even an unskilled gunman to rapidly fire high-velocity bullets that leave catastrophic wounds. Tragically, real-world experience confirms the AR-15’s singular dangerousness: From Sandy Hook to Las Vegas to Parkland to Uvalde, shooters have used the AR-15 or similar weapons in the vast majority of mass-casualty shootings this century,” Prelogar wrote for the state’s brief.
“The Constitution does not prevent Connecticut from banning the very weapons that have wrought incalculable harm and unimaginable loss on the people of that State,” Prelogar added later in the brief.
The pro-gun groups suing over the pair of “assault weapons” bans have argued in their briefs that the AR-15, which is the most popular firearm in the country, has to be covered under the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, otherwise local governments would find ways to enact sweeping bans on other types of guns.
“This is the next ‘great white whale’ of the gun advocacy space, so it doesn’t get much bigger,” Bill Sack, senior director of legal operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, previously told the Washington Examiner. “What is at stake is whether the Second Amendment protects the most popular firearms in the country.”
‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BANS ARE ON THEIR WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT
The Trump administration has sided with the pro-gun groups in the case, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer filing a brief last month arguing the pair of bans is unconstitutional and does not comport with the country’s history and tradition of firearms regulation.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the consolidated cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins on Dec. 2, with a ruling in the cases expected by the end of June.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
