By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
The Department of Justice has filed a 40-page amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut), which will be held on Wednesday, Dec. 2 beginning at 10 a.m.
The document, signed by Solicitor General John D. Sauer and Assistant Attorneys General Harmeet Dhillon and Brett A. Schumate, includes some blockbuster observations from an agency that has historically not been supportive of Second Amendment challenges to state and local gun control laws/
“The right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is among the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 778 (2010). Millions of Americans exercise that right by owning an AR-15 rifle, which is ‘the most popular rifle in the country.’ Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025). Yet the State of Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, have made the possession of AR-15s a crime.”
That paragraph is immediately followed by this: “AR-15s a crime. Those bans are unconstitutional. A firearms re striction comports with the Second Amendment only if it is ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022). And this country’s regulatory tradition precludes banning arms that are ‘in common use’ among law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. District of Colum bia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008). That common use test has deep historical roots in English and American law. This Court has already adopted that test and has repeatedly applied it to evaluate the validity of arms bans. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 47; Heller, 554 U.S. at 627; United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).”
While some in the firearms community have criticized the brief as being weak in comments at Ammoland News, others are cheering the fact that it was filed.
When did the Biden DOJ ever come remotely close to stating in a Supreme Court filing that, “The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States. The overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners possess those rifles for the lawful purposes to which they are adapted, such as self-defense in the home, hunting, and target shooting. A ban on possessing such rifles thus violates the Second Amendment.”
The DOJ amicus also states, “A ban on a class of firearms burdens the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text. And this country’s regulatory tradition precludes such a ban where the firearms in question are in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Because AR-15 rifles are in common use, Connecticut’s and Cook County’s categorical bans on such rifles violate the Constitution.”
Another important amicus has been submitted by the attorneys general representing 27 states. They are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Theya re all Republicans.
In their 36-page brief, the attorneys general note, “This Court should honor the Second Amendment’s guarantee and hold that it does not allow a categorical ban on AR-15 plat form or other semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes.”
Importantly, their brief also states, “Since the AR-15 platform rifle entered the market, the popularity of semiautomatic rifles among the American citizenry has only grown. Consider the sheer number of semiautomatic rifles in circulation. Since 1990, over 32 million modern sporting rifles (roughly 1 for every 11 Americans) have been produced in or imported into the United States…Some estimates suggest ‘around 24 million AR-[1]5s and similar sports weapons remain in circulation—a figure that is surpassed only by the number of registered handgun owners within the United States.’”
Clearly, the upcoming oral arguments involve one of the weightiest constitutional cases facing the high court. A ruling is not expected until sometime in June 2027.
