(DCNF)—The opening salvo of a Second Amendment case centered on bans of modern semiautomatic firearms landed Friday afternoon at the United States Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on Friday filed its opening brief in Cutberto Viramontes, et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, et al., a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a local ban on so-called “assault weapons” passed by the defendant in 2006. The brief, while noting the popularity of AR-15-style rifles, argues the appellate courts that heard both the Viramontes case and a similar case involving Connecticut’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s Heller and Bruen cases, which upheld Second Amendment rights to bear arms.
“Since Heller, the Court has continued to make clear that firearms are arms under the plain text of the Second Amendment,” the brief states. “In Bruen, for instance, the Court explained that the Second Amendment’s text covers all ‘instruments that facilitate armed self-defense,’ regardless of when they were invented.”
“Anti-gun states, relying on circuit courts that are hostile to the Second Amendment, have long gotten away with unserious arguments in AWB cases,” SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “That tactic was always only going to work until the Supreme Court finally decided to take on the issue itself. That time has come, and our opening brief lays out the arguments that we believe will be adopted by the Court in its ruling.”
The justices granted writs of certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins on June 30, consolidating the cases prior to hearing oral arguments once the next term of the Supreme Court begins in October. The high court’s decision to accept the petition came less than a week after it struck down Hawaii’s so-called “vampire rule” regarding carrying firearms on private property in a 6-3 ruling authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
The New York Times noted in a May 13 article that, not only was the AR-15 a very popular rifle, but that modern semiautomatic firearms bearing a superficial resemblance to the AK-47 were previously “ubiquitous” before the AR-15’s ascendance among the general public. Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and Bruen, firearms in common use for lawful purposes fall under the Second Amendment’s protection.
“Assault weapons bans represent one of the largest and most pernicious gun rights issues facing Americans,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a Friday release announcing the brief had been filed. “The Second Amendment demands that it is ‘the People’ who get to choose what firearm is best suited to their lawful needs, not an ideologue legislator.”
“Modern semi-automatic rifles are the overwhelming choice of Americans for all sorts of reasons – they are easy to shoot, mechanically accurate, modular and ergonomically adaptable,” Kraut continued. “As a result, Americans from all walks of life choose these firearms to defend their families and their homes. Our brief today lays out exactly why politicians who hide behind their own armed security do not have the authority to ban these firearms.”
Weeks after the Supreme Court took up the Viramontes case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling declaring New Jersey’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “large-capacity magazines” holding more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment rights of residents.
“Applying the framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we agree with the District Court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment,” the Third Circuit said in its opinion — written by Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, an appointee of former President Joe Biden — in Cheeseman v. New Jersey Attorney General. “However, because the record supports the same result for all semi-automatic rifles—not only Colt AR-15s—we will MODIFY the District Court’s order so that it deems the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles. We will AFFIRM that part of the order as modified.”
“The [large-capacity magazine] Provisions also violate the Second Amendment, so we will REVERSE the District Court’s order with respect to those,” the Third Circuit continued, creating a “circuit split” due to its ruling conflicting with appellate circuits that upheld similar bans.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
