AR-15 ban issue draws 45 amicus briefs to the Supreme Court
On August 28, the plaintiffs in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, and Grant v. Higgins submitted their opening brief challenging Cook County’s and Connecticut’s so‑called “assault weapon” prohibitions, which had been sustained by the Seventh and Second Circuits. The cases have been consolidated, with the petitioners in both matters represented by Cooper & Kirk. The central question presented asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the right to possess AR-15 platform rifles and other comparable semiautomatic firearms. The brief notes that the rifle stands as a quintessential American arm, and the AR-15 embodies the quintessential American rifle. Semiautomatic rifles fall under the category of “arms,” are in widespread use, and are therefore protected by the Court’s precedents; there is nothing in the nation’s historical traditions that justifies prohibiting them.
By the deadline the following week, roughly forty-five amicus briefs had been filed, all supporting the petitioners aside from two that stated they did not align with either party. If you wish, the Court’s docket is available here to review the briefs. Overall, the submissions tackle the full range of arguments that have proliferated since the original ban was enacted in 1989 (notably California’s), as the lower courts try to overlook the holdings of successive Supreme Court rulings—from Heller and Bruen to Rahimi and Wolford. Below is a representative sampling of the many strong briefs filed.
In Viramontes, the Seventh Circuit contends that there is virtually no meaningful distinction between a semiautomatic AR-15 and a fully automatic M16. For the Second Amendment Law Center, the filing cites ATF’s predecessor’s 1963 classification of the Colt AR-15 Sporter as semiautomatic only, not a machinegun. It also underscores the inconsistencies in the so‑called “assault weapon” definitions—Cook County bans a semiauto rifle without a stock, Connecticut bans it with a stock, and Maryland bans neither.
Professor William English’s brief highlights his new 2026 National Firearms Survey, which follows his 2021 study and shows that roughly one in ten American adults currently owns an AR-15 or a similarly styled semiautomatic rifle: “25.0% of gun owners currently own an AR-15 type rifle, 12.9% currently own other similarly styled semi-automatic rifles, and 30.0%—approximately 26.4 million adults—currently own at least one firearm in one of these two categories.” The 2026 survey also indicates there are about 60 million AR-15 style or related semiautomatic rifles in circulation, matching the findings of earlier research from groups such as the Washington Post.
Dr. Angus McClellan explores the Anglo‑American notion of the “dangerous and unusual” rule, showing that the law sometimes governs (i) where and when arms are displayed, (ii) how they are used, and (iii) what kind of weapon is involved. Under the framework established in 1791, AR-15‑style rifles resemble the longbow, musket, and handgun as weapons that law‑abiding citizens may possess and that government cannot outright ban.
The brief from Tennessee and twenty-six other states demonstrates, merely by its existence, how ordinary it is for citizens to own semiautomatic rifles and how exceptional the handful of states that ban them truly are. It states that the twenty-seven “Amici States’” residents are among the millions of Americans who own AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles for a broad array of lawful purposes—including hunting, sport, and defending oneself and others.
The Ballistics Experts’ brief is rich with technical evidence showing that AR-15 ammunition typically produces wounds no more severe than those inflicted by ammunition used in other rifles and some handguns. The Second Circuit’s Grant ruling, which claimed wounds in the size of a “Coke can” and decapitation risks, is criticized within this briefing as unfounded.
Finally, the United States’ brief reflects the professional expectations one would anticipate from the Office of the Solicitor General. It addresses all essential considerations and emphasizes an oft-overlooked point: traditional legislative practice provides useful guidance for applying the common‑use test. In particular, “the longstanding and widespread legality of a class of arms usually suggests that law‑abiding citizens can and do possess such arms for lawful purposes.”
Numerous other excellent amicus briefs have also been filed, and the volume of material is substantial. In short, no aspect of the Second Amendment’s protection for AR-15 platform rifles and other similar semiautomatics has been left unexamined. Expect a wave of briefs supporting the respondents to follow. The oral argument is scheduled for December 2.
