Cook County, Illinois, and the state of Connecticut filed their briefs at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 21, defending their bans on AR-15 style rifles ahead of oral arguments on December 2. The consolidated cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, ask whether bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment, a question the justices agreed on June 30 to decide.
What the governments argue
Cook County's ordinance bars the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of listed assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. In its brief, the county argues the law fits a historical tradition of regulating "unusually dangerous weapons," comparing it to old restrictions on trap guns, Bowie knives and slung shots, Reason reported. The brief calls AR-15s "offensive weapons of war designed for maximum lethality" and says "raw ownership numbers cannot immunize a firearm from regulation."
Connecticut first banned assault weapons in 1993 and expanded the law in 2013 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a gunman with an AR-15 style rifle killed 20 children and six educators. Attorney General William Tong, whose office is defending the law, has called the ban "lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported," WFSB reported when the justices took the case.
What the challengers argue
The gun owners, joined in the Cook County case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, say the rifles are protected because they are in common use. They point to more than 20 million of the banned rifles in circulation and argue the government must prove the rifles are "highly unusual in society at large," not just dangerous, according to a summary of the briefing in the Cumberland Trial Journal. They also reject the lower court's view that the guns are closer to military weapons, noting that an AR-15 fires one round per trigger pull.
The federal government is on their side. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the challengers, Reason reported. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported in January that Americans own more than 32 million of what the industry calls modern sporting rifles.
How the case got here
The legal framework comes from two earlier rulings. District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 said the Second Amendment protects arms "in common use at the time." New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 requires gun laws to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Lower courts upheld both bans. The Seventh Circuit, relying on its 2023 decision in Bevis v. City of Naperville, rejected the Cook County challenge, and a Second Circuit panel upheld Connecticut's restrictions in August 2025, The Reload reported. Other courts have gone the other way. In July 2026, the Third Circuit struck down New Jersey's bans on commonly owned rifles and magazines, Reason reported.
The December arguments follow a term in which the court sided with gun owners twice. On June 25 it struck down Hawaii's rule barring licensed carriers from private property open to the public without the owner's permission, by a 6 to 3 vote. A week earlier it narrowed the federal ban on gun possession by drug users in a ruling written by Justice Neil Gorsuch in which no justice dissented.
A decision in the AR-15 cases is expected by June 2027. For more on how carry rights already change from state to state, read our story on carrying a gun across state lines. It is the kind of case the Two Taps legal panel takes apart on the show.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
