Supreme Court agrees to review ban on AR-style semi-automatic rifles in major Second Amendment case
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide whether cities and states can ban people from owning AR-15 rifles and similar semiautomatic weapons, taking up a major Second Amendment dispute it has dealt with before. refused to give address.
One objection to specific semiautomatic rifles came from two Illinois residents who wanted to buy an AR-15-style rifle but were prevented from doing so by an ordinance in Cook County that makes it illegal to sell or possess any “assault weapon or large-capacity magazine” and lists dozens of models that are specifically prohibited.
Ten states have similar bans, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.
Another case came from several Connecticut residents who wanted to purchase guns covered by the state’s ban.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to address the issue, but there have been signs in recent years that the court is ready to reconsider that approach.
Last year, when the justices refused to hear arguments in a case involving Maryland’s ban on similar weapons, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a brief opinion arguing that “this court should and likely will address the AR-15 issue soon.” In this opinion, he noted that most states do not ban guns and described those that do, as “an outlier.”
Gun rights groups make a point unanimous decision on a separate issue It was written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who last year described the AR-15 as “the nation’s most popular rifle” and “generally legal and purchased by many ordinary consumers.” The court’s precedent has held that weapons that are “in common use” for lawful purposes, as opposed to those that are “dangerous” or “unusual,” are protected by the Second Amendment.
Challenges to AR-15 rifles are among several issues that have reached the court in the wake of the Second Amendment. blockbuster 2022 verdict New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. The Bruen case eliminated New York’s strict requirement that residents provide justification for obtaining a carry permit. As part of that decision, the 6-3 conservative majority said today’s gun regulations should be based on “the nation’s historic tradition of firearms regulation” to avoid Second Amendment challenges.
Gun rights groups opposing Cook County’s ordinance framed the AR-15 as both common and historic.
“Since this country’s founding, the rifle has been the archetypal American weapon, facilitating the struggle for independence against the British and serving as the ‘companion’ and ‘ward protector’ of westward pioneers,” the groups said in their appeal to the Supreme Court. “The AR-15 platform rifle is the modern descendant of the rifles carried by Revolutionary militias and pioneers who stormed the West in search of a better life.”
Cook County, by contrast, opened its brief opposing the appeal with a list of mass shootings it described as “assault weapons” and the number of people killed in those incidents. “2022 Highland Park parade7 dead; 2022 buffalo supermarket“10 dead,” it said. The list went on for more than three pages.
“When compared to less lethal weapons such as knives or guns, their inherent lethality makes them an attractive choice for mass murder,” Cook County officials wrote. “In battle, the ability to fire continuously without reloading means combat effectiveness.”
Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, both Cook County residents, filed the lawsuit in 2021, claiming the ordinance violated the Second Amendment. According to court records, Viramontes wants to purchase an AR-15 style gun for self-defense. Khaya stated that he would most likely use one “at range.” The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation were also part of the lawsuit.
A federal district court sided with the county, and the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at: CNN.com
