Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
The U.S. Supreme Court just agreed to hear what could become the biggest Second Amendment case since Bruen.
On Monday, the Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two closely watched lawsuits challenging so-called assault weapon bans in Illinois and Connecticut.
For gun owners, it’s the case many have been waiting for.
For gun-control advocates, it’s one they hope the Court gets right for very different reasons.
Table of contents
Everytown: These Laws Save Lives
Everytown Law welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the cases, saying the justices should ultimately uphold the bans.
“Assault weapons cause massive devastation. They are the weapons of choice for mass shooters,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at Everytown Law.
The organization argues the bans are constitutional and notes that six federal appeals courts have upheld similar laws. Everytown also points to research claiming that shootings involving so-called assault weapons result in significantly more victims than incidents involving other firearms.
According to the group, 11 states and Washington, D.C., currently prohibit these rifles.
NSSF: They’re America’s Most Popular Rifle
The National Shooting Sports Foundation sees the issue very differently. NSSF celebrated the Court’s decision, arguing it’s long overdue.
The organization says the cases involve the most commonly sold centerfire rifle in America, with more than 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles currently owned by law-abiding Americans.
That’s important because the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen held that firearms in “common use” for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.
NSSF argues that’s exactly where these rifles fall.
The trade association also expressed frustration that the Court declined to hear similar challenges last year, saying lower courts have continued to misapply Heller and Bruen.
SAF: Common Use Is the Key
The Second Amendment Foundation also praised the Court’s decision.
Executive Director Adam Kraut said the cases should finally answer whether commonly owned semi-automatic rifles receive the same constitutional protection as other firearms.
“The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country,” Kraut said.
SEE ALSO: Mossberg 590 Bliksem Review: 12-Gauge Thunder
He added that it’s difficult to argue the rifles fall outside the Second Amendment when there may be more of them in civilian hands than Ford F-150 pickups on American roads.
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said lawmakers have relied on “fearmongering” when regulating semi-automatic rifles based largely on their appearance and cosmetic features rather than how they function.
Why This Case Matters
The Court isn’t deciding whether these rifles are good or bad. The central legal question is much narrower:
Can states ban a class of firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes?
Gun-rights groups say the answer is clearly “no” under Heller and Bruen.
Gun-control advocates argue these rifles are uniquely dangerous and that states have the authority to restrict them in the interest of public safety.
Sometime during the Court’s upcoming term, the justices will have the final word. Whatever they decide won’t just affect Illinois and Connecticut. It’ll reshape gun laws across the country.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
