By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A veritable avalanche of amicus briefs, primarily from traditionally anti-gun organizations, Democrat-controlled states and cities, and Democrat governors hit the U.S. Supreme Court this week, calling on the justices to rule in favor of bans on modern semi-automatic firearms in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois.
There were briefs from teacher groups, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, pediatrics groups, church organizations, assorted prosecutors and some individual citizens. Gun prohibition lobbying groups such as the billionaire-backed Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords also submitted briefs.
All shared the same theme, that so-called “assault weapons” are bad and that bans on such firearms are “common-sense measures” and that they “comport fully with the principles underlying our Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation,” as asserted in the 56-page brief submitted by several Democrat-controlled states.
They all seemed to share something else, a lack of acknowledgement that the perpetrators of crimes involving such firearms violated scores of existing gun control laws and regulations which were all adopted on the grounds that they would prevent such crimes, chief among them laws against murder. Several of the briefs suggested the participants are better able to tell people how they should live their lives than the people making their own life decisions.
Kostas Moros, director of Legal Research and Education, posted on “X” how “A lot of the briefs we read this week repeatedly argued that firearms like the AR15 are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are too ‘militaristic.’ Some lower courts have ruled the same, like the Seventh Circuit in Bevis v. City of Naperville saying that ‘military weapons lie outside the class of Arms to which the individual right applies.’
“These arguments,” he continued, “completely ignore one of the core purposes of the Second Amendment. Our new factsheet compiles several courts rulings and excerpts from commentary which confirm that the Second Amendment certainly applies to arms useful in combat. Historically, that is what it protected most of all.”
One brief, submitted by a group of anti-gun-rights governors calling themselves the “Governors Safer Communities Initiative”—including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson—declared, “Given its priorities, the Initiative’s members have a significant interest in the defense of common-sense measures that regulate possession of certain dangerous weapons. Although the laws of amicus members’ jurisdictions differ in substance, we are aligned in our firm conviction that states retain broad authority under their police power to enact measures like these—tailored to their own residents’ needs and consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition. The officials who enact them, moreover, are best positioned to judge what their communities need.”
The brief submitted by attorneys general representing several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington asserts, “…assault weapons are disproportionately dangerous compared to their civilian self-defense uses. Assault weapons like the AR-15 were designed to kill armored enemy combatants in offensive battlefield situations. They are rarely used in real-world self defense situations. But they are used with increasing frequency in the deadliest mass shootings across the Nation. State and local laws restricting assault weapons like the AR-15 thus comport fully with the principles underlying our Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”
One brief in particular, from David A. Robinson, counsel of record in North Haven, Conn., goes to the extreme of suggesting part of the Second Amendment—the so-called “prefatory clause” addressing the necessity of a well-regulated militia—is extinct. He further asserts, “the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is extinct unless the right is inherent. The right to self-defense is inherent, so the Second Amendment gives civilians the right to keep and bear arms necessary for self-defense.”
Robinson acknowledges in his opening remarks, “My interest in this case stems from my effort in 2023 24 to start a movement to amend the Second Amendment for modern times and modern safety needs…. I tried to start a movement to persuade the American people to amend the Constitution to clarify the Second Amendment for modern times, but I failed because the people cannot agree on the language of an amendment clarifying the Second.”
The consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut), are scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, Dec. 2 before the Supreme Court. Both cases were spearheaded by the Second Amendment Foundation, with various partners in each case.
There is no small irony in the fact that SAF is headquartered in Washington state, whose officials are involved in at least three of the opposing briefs, underscoring the seriousness of the long-standing belief that SAF is “operating behind enemy lines.”
