The justices agreed to hear challenges to semiautomatic rifle restrictions in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, setting up a new test of how far governments may go in banning firearms commonly described as assault weapons.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear challenges to state and local bans on AR-15-style rifles and other semiautomatic firearms, setting up a major Second Amendment case for the court’s next term.
The justices said in a brief order that they will take up cases involving a statewide Connecticut law and a Cook County, Illinois, ordinance. Both measures restrict access to many types of semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style firearms.
The cases ask whether those rifles are protected by the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.
Lower courts upheld the Connecticut and Cook County restrictions, rejecting arguments that the bans violate the Constitution. Gun rights groups and private citizens challenging the measures argue that AR-15-style rifles are commonly owned firearms and fall within the protections recognized by recent Supreme Court precedent.
Supporters of the bans argue that the firearms are frequently used in mass shootings and are similar to military-style rifles, though many modern military rifles include fully automatic firing capability.
Cook County first adopted its ban in 1993. The current ordinance prohibits many semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15 and certain versions of the AK-47.
County lawyers said the firearms have long been associated with mass violence and described them as “the weapon of choice for criminals and terrorists set on quickly massacring innocents.” They cited several criminal cases, including the attempted assassination of Donald Trump during a 2024 campaign rally in Pennsylvania, where the shooter, Thomas Crooks, had an AR-15-style rifle.
The challengers, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, argued that AR-15-style rifles are widely owned and legally used by Americans.
“These firearms are not distinct from other rifles in their design or their function. Indeed, the very term ‘assault weapon’ is a political slogan masquerading as a meaningful designation, designed to exploit ‘the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic’ firearms,” the petition said.
The Supreme Court declined last year to hear challenges involving a Maryland semiautomatic rifle ban and a Rhode Island ban on magazines holding 11 or more rounds, often described as high-capacity or large-capacity magazines.
About a dozen states have similar semiautomatic rifle restrictions, including states covering major cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Congress enacted a national assault weapons ban in 1994, but that law expired in 2004. Democrats have continued to support reviving a federal ban after mass shootings, while states have passed their own restrictions.
The court’s decision to take the new cases comes after several recent rulings that strengthened Second Amendment protections.
In 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, creating a standard that requires modern gun laws to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
During the term that ended Tuesday, the court limited the government’s ability to prosecute people for possessing guns if they use marijuana. It also struck down a Hawaii law restricting the carrying of firearms on private property.
The justices will hear arguments in the AR-15-related cases during the next Supreme Court term, which begins in October and is expected to run through June or July 2027.
The court also rejected a separate group of appeals Tuesday challenging federal and state bans on handgun purchases by people ages 18 to 20.
The coming case could determine whether state and local governments may continue enforcing bans on AR-15-style rifles or whether those firearms must be treated as protected arms under the Second Amendment.
Original article
Comments