First Volley of Briefs Filed in Viramontes

On August 28, petitioners in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, and Grant v. Higginsfiled their opening brief challenging the “assault firearm” bans of Cook County and the state of Connecticut that were upheld by the Seventh and Second Circuits respectively.  The cases are consolidated, and the petitioners in each are represented by Cooper & Kirk.  The question presented is: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”  As the brief explains, the rifle is a paradigmatic American arm and the AR-15 is the paradigmatic American rifle.  Textually, such semiautomatic rifles are “arms,” they are in common use and are thus protected under the Court’s precedents, and nothing in the Nation’s historical traditions justifies banning them.

By the following week’s deadline, some forty-five amicus briefs had been filed, all in support of petitioners except for two claiming not to support either party.  The Court’s docket is here if you’d like to skim through the briefs.  Overall, the briefs address the entirety of the ever-expanding arguments that have been advanced since the first ban was passed in 1989 (unsurprisingly, California’s), as the lower courts struggle to ignore the holdings of one Supreme Court decision after another, from Heller and Bruen to Rahimi and Wolford.  I’ll mention just an illustrative handful of the many fine briefs here.

In Viramontes, the Seventh Circuit asserts that virtually no difference exists between the semiautomatic AR-15 and the fully-automatic M16.  On behalf of the Second Amendment Law Center, my brief quotes from the 1963 classification by ATF’s predecessor agency of the Colt AR-15 Sporter as semiautomatic only and not in the machinegun category.  It further shows the incongruity of the “assault weapon” definitions—Cook County bans a semiauto rifle if it has no stock, Connecticut bans it if it has a stock, and Maryland doesn’t ban either.

Professor William English’s brief summarizes his new 2026 National Firearms Survey, which follows up on his 2021 survey, showing that that roughly one in ten American adults currently owns an AR-15 or similarly styled semiautomatic rifle: “25.0% of gun owners currently own an AR-15 type rifle, 12.9% currently own other similarly styled semi-automatic rifles, and 30.0%—approximately 26.4 million adults—currently own at least one firearm in one of these two categories.”  The 2026 English survey reflects that there are approximately 60 million AR-15 style or similar semi-automatic rifles of the types banned by Cook County and Connecticut. This is the most advanced research on common use and its results appear consistent with prior surveys by organizations such as the Washington Post.

Dr. Angus McClellan takes a deep dive into Anglo-American law’s “dangerous and unusual” rule showing that the law sometimes restricts “(i) when and where arms were displayed, (ii) how they were used, and (iii) what type of weapon was involved.”  Under 1791’s principles, AR-15-style rifles parallel the longbow, musket, and handgun as the arms of law-abiding people that government may not prohibit.

The brief of Tennessee and 26 other states, just by being filed, exemplifies how normal it is for citizens to possess semiautomatic rifles and how much of outliers are the handful of states that ban them.  As it states, the 27 “Amici States’ citizens are among the millions of Americans who own AR-15 platform and other similar semiautomatic rifles for numerous lawful purposes—including for hunting, for sport, and for defense of self and others.”

The brief of Ballistics Experts is full of technical research summarizing how AR-15 ammunition causes wounds typically no more severe than wounds caused by ammunition from other rifles and some handguns.  The Second Circuit in Grant made the ridiculous claim that it inflicts wounds the size of a “Coke can” and decapitates victims.

Finally, the brief of the United States is everything one would expect professionally from the Solicitor General’s office.  All the bases are covered, but it makes the point often ignored that traditional legislative practice provides useful and further guidance to applying the common-use test.  Specifically, “the longstanding and widespread legality of a class of arms usually suggests that law-abiding citizens can and do possess such arms for lawful purposes.”

There are many other fine amici briefs that have been filed, but the sheer number is overwhelming.  Suffice it to say that no stone has been left unturned in demonstrating the Second Amendment’s protection for AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.  Look for a ton of briefs to be filed next in support of respondents.  Oral argument is set for December 2.