The Supreme Court will hear arguments Dec. 2 in a closely watched Second Amendment challenge asking whether the Constitution protects possession of AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles prohibited under Cook County, Illinois, law.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for Dec. 2 in a case that could determine whether state and local governments may prohibit possession of AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles under the Second Amendment.
The court placed Viramontes v. Cook County on its December oral-argument calendar, setting up consideration of a constitutional challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ restrictions on semiautomatic firearms. The Supreme Court agreed in June to hear the case.
At the center of the dispute is a direct constitutional question identified by the justices when they granted review.
“Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles” is the question presented to the court, according to its June 30 order.
The litigation challenges Cook County’s prohibition on firearms classified by the locality as “assault weapons.” The ordinance restricts possession, acquisition and transfer of covered firearms, including certain semiautomatic rifles and specifically identified models such as AR-15s.
The Second Amendment Foundation is among the groups pursuing the challenge.
On Aug. 28, the organization filed its opening brief before the Supreme Court in Cutberto Viramontes, et al. v. Cook County, Illinois, et al., asking the justices to invalidate the local restrictions as inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
The case arrives at the Supreme Court as federal appellate courts continue to confront challenges to restrictions on semiautomatic rifles and ammunition magazines.
On July 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a separate ruling involving New Jersey, concluding that the state’s complete prohibition on possession of covered semiautomatic rifles violated the Second Amendment. The decision also addressed New Jersey’s restrictions on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
The Cook County case therefore reaches the justices amid continuing disputes over how the Supreme Court’s previous Second Amendment decisions apply to modern semiautomatic firearms.
The prevalence of those firearms in civilian ownership is expected to be an important part of that debate.
A May 13 New York Times article described the AR-15 as a popular rifle and noted that other modern semiautomatic firearms resembling the AK-47 had once been “ubiquitous” before the AR-15 became increasingly dominant in the U.S. civilian market.
Questions surrounding common ownership are significant because of the framework established by previous Supreme Court decisions involving the Second Amendment.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home, while also explaining that the Second Amendment does not protect every weapon in every circumstance. The opinion discussed the historical distinction between weapons “in common use” and those considered “dangerous and unusual.”
The court later reshaped the analysis of firearm regulations in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring governments defending firearm restrictions covered by the Second Amendment’s text to demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Those precedents have become central to litigation over modern semiautomatic rifles.
The challengers in Viramontes contend that AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles are commonly possessed by Americans for lawful purposes and therefore cannot constitutionally be subjected to a categorical possession ban.
Cook County has defended its authority to regulate the firearms, leaving the Supreme Court to address a question that lower federal courts have resolved differently as Second Amendment litigation has developed following Heller and Bruen.
The Dec. 2 arguments will give the justices an opportunity to clarify how those precedents apply specifically to AR-15-platform rifles and comparable semiautomatic firearms.
Whatever the ultimate decision, the case places squarely before the nation’s highest court the constitutional status of one of the most widely debated categories of firearms in the United States.
Original article
Comments