The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear two consolidated cases challenging state and local bans on semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style weapons. The cases—Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County—originate in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, and could determine the constitutionality of similar bans in roughly a dozen states.
The court’s decision to take up the cases follows lower court rulings that upheld the bans, rejecting arguments that they violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs, including gun-rights organizations, argue that the weapons are in "common use" and protected under the Constitution. Defendants, including state and local officials, contend that the bans are necessary public safety measures to prevent mass shootings.
Background and Legal Context
The Connecticut law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, restricts possession of certain semiautomatic rifles unless they were owned before a 2013 cutoff and registered with the state. Cook County’s ordinance, first enacted in 1993, bans the sale, possession, and transfer of specific semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s and AK-47s.
Stakeholder Perspectives
Gun-rights advocates, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, argue that the bans infringe on constitutional rights. They cite data showing that AR-15s and similar rifles are among the most commonly owned firearms in the U.S., with over 32 million in circulation. They also point to Supreme Court precedents, such as Heller and Bruen, which protect firearms in common use.
Opponents of the bans, including Everytown for Gun Safety and state officials, argue that the weapons are disproportionately used in mass shootings and pose an exceptional public safety risk. They note that only about 2% of Americans own assault weapons and that they are rarely used for self-defense. Connecticut state attorneys have also argued that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that these weapons are appropriate or used for self-defense.
Potential Implications
A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could strike down similar bans in states like California, New York, and others with strict gun laws. Conversely, a decision upholding the bans could reinforce the authority of states to regulate firearms based on public safety concerns. The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the fall, with a decision likely by June 2027.