By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Buried deep into a USA Today report about the U.S. Supreme Court’s “big focus” on firearms rights and regulations is a paragraph which may underscore the apprehension within the gun prohibition movement about the upcoming hearing on the constitutionality of state bans on so-called “assault weapons.”
Viramontes v. Cook County challenges the ban in Cook County, Illinois. The Second Amendment Foundation filed this case in August 2021 and is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents.
Grant v. Higgins challenges the ban in Connecticut. Originally known as Grant v. Lamont, this case was filed in September 2022 by SAF, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) and three private citizens.
As SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told TGM recently, the high court chose these two cases probably to cover all the bases: state and local gun bans.
When USA Today quoted Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at the Brady gun control group, he referred to where the line should be drawn regarding “historically restricted dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Then he said this: “Obviously, there are disagreements on where that line should be drawn. We think it absolutely should be drawn so that assault weapons bans … are constitutional.”
It is a quote which does not appear to exude much confidence.
When Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation wrote earlier this month about being “downright giddy” the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to both cases and consolidated them, he noted, “Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s prediction that the Supreme Court should answer the question of whether banning the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America violates the U.S. Constitution is coming. The firearm industry, gun owners, Second Amendment supporters and constitutional watchdogs are just as excited as the industry.
“Gun control groups, on the other hand, are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth. If you read their statements, the sky is falling. They’re again making unmoored hyperbolic predictions of carnage.”
USA Today, same as many others in the media, refers to the gun prohibition lobby as “gun violence prevention groups.” A recent report in TGM, published July 21, lifted the veil on this latest effort at repackaging gun banners.
Timeline In Motion
The timeline for moving toward oral arguments has already begun.
According to William Sack, senior director for Legal Operations at the Second Amendment Foundation—which is directly involved in both cases, the first deadline is for SAF’s opening brief to be filed by Friday, Aug. 28
The next deadline, and one which will show just how much interest there is in this case, is the following Friday, Sept. 4. At that time, all amicus briefs representing both sides of the argument must be filed. Expect briefs from pro- and anti-gun state attorneys general, various gun rights organizations and assorted gun prohibition groups.
Thirty days after SAF’s brief is filed, the response briefs from the defendants are due. This would make them all at the Supreme Court by early October, within a day or two of when the high court opens its October 2026 session. Actual oral arguments may not occur until sometime in November or even December, with a ruling not expected until sometime in June 2027.
Important milestones in the fight to fully restore the Second Amendment were detailed by the USA Today article:
First, the court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for “traditionally lawful purposes.” This was followed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment, and struck down Chicago’s 30-year-old handgun ban.
Four years ago, in 2022, the high court ruled again in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, created what has been dubbed the “historical tradition” test, while throwing out a two-step approach invented by lower federal courts.
The next 11 months are going to be nerve wracking for many in the firearms community, which must also muster all of its energy to turn out for the November mid-term elections, and then to be on full watch as state legislatures—wary of what may be coming from the Supreme Court—may move to push more gun controls.
