The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is taking its fight against Illinois-style gun bans to the highest court in the land.
On August 27, 2025, the group formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review Viramontes v. Cook County, a long-running case challenging the county’s prohibition on so-called “assault weapons.”
Case Background
Filed in 2021, Viramontes was paused while the Supreme Court decided Bruen in 2022 and while Illinois lawmakers passed their own sweeping “assault weapons” ban—legislation now under fire in SAF’s separate case, Harrel v. Raoul.
Cook County’s ordinance mirrors the statewide law, barring ownership of AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that millions of Americans lawfully own. SAF is joined in the suit by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.
Why This Case Matters
According to SAF, the Cook County ban strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment by outlawing ordinary firearms in common use. The group points out that “assault weapon” is a political invention designed to blur the line between semi-automatics and machine guns.
SEE ALSO: The Mozambique Drill in The Movies
Bill Sack, SAF’s Director of Legal Operations, said the Supreme Court has signaled interest in taking up rifle bans soon, and that this case is “a solid vehicle for that review.”
Justice Clarence Thomas recently underscored that point in his dissent from the denial of Snope v. Brown, warning that continued delays leave millions of Americans stripped of their rights.
SAF’s Position
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb criticized Cook County’s law as an ideological attempt to disarm residents:
“The disenfranchisement of an entire population of residents is an absolute infringement on their Second Amendment rights,” he said. “We’ve fought this case for far too long and it’s time for the Supreme Court to step in.”
The petition argues that AR-15s are functionally no different from other semi-automatic rifles, making them protected under the Court’s Heller and Bruen precedents, which safeguard firearms in “common use.”
What’s Next
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Viramontes, the case could become a major test of whether bans on America’s most popular rifles can stand under the Constitution.
With Illinois’ statewide ban also under review in Harrel v. Raoul, the stakes are high. A ruling could not only resolve years of litigation in Chicago’s Cook County but also ripple across states like California, New York, and New Jersey, which enforce similar restrictions.
***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica!***
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
All bans that make illegal the Armalite 15 or 10 or Avtomat Kalashnikova type or any other semi automatic rifles should be struck down as against the 2nd Amendment liberties of the common people.
Magazine bans are also against the 2nd Amendment. Two hundred round belt fed to thirty-two round Uzi magazines should be legal property of We the people.
I also hope we get back sound suppressors and short barrel shotguns in the future. We now have ways around the short barrel rifle laws, but all of these silly National Firearm Act regulations also need to go.
Not just Heller, McDonald,and Bruen, but also Caetano v Massachusetts and the GAY MARRIAGE RULING ! The plurality of the states allow them, so the rest SHOULD be required to ! Caetano said Just that, and so did the gay marriage ruling !
“Ordinary firearms in common use” is a horrible argument. This makes any new designs up for inclusion in any future ban the libs wish to implement. Going back to the second amendment, it was worded for any arms made in that day AND going forward. The way I read it, it includes anything from a rock to a plasma rifle and beyond. It would be hard to protect yourself or your country from attacks foreign or domestic with a single shot 22, or an AR, if the attacking force has something far greater. One of the reasons for the Second Amendment is for all citizens to be able to volunteer in extreme cases of attack and be already able to fight. I doubt the US government will ever carry enough weaponry for every able-bodied American, and if they did,it would take an exorbitant amount of time to disburse them. This is my reason for ensuring I have something that will digest military ammo, can keep up with the need as much as possible, and have enough ammo of my own to keep going while they figure it out, if it ever becomes necessary.
One of the strongest arguments that surfaced in a study about WHY AR-15 platform rifles SHOULD be allowed to be owned mirrored your argument ! They pointed out that the AR platform is similar enough to a M16 or M4 platform that parts could be changed by an Military armorer in the field for personal weapons if need be, magazines and accessories were interchangeable and so was ammo ! They pointed out that of all the weapons in circulation, that the AR was the most supportable by our military in a time of crisis !
Keeping my fingers crossed.🤞