The U.S. Justice Department has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn state and local bans on AR-15 rifles in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois. The department contends that these restrictions infringe on the Second Amendment rights of Americans by prohibiting firearms that are widely owned for lawful purposes.

Explainer Understanding the Supreme Court’s Impact on Law and Liberty

Background of the Dispute

At the heart of the legal battle is whether governments can ban firearms that are commonly possessed for lawful activities. The Justice Department, in its recent filing, sided against the bans, arguing that such laws are inconsistent with the constitutional rights recognized by the Supreme Court.

The brief was submitted Friday by Solicitor General D. John Sauer as an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," in two cases: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Both cases challenge laws that classify AR-15 rifles as "assault weapons" and prohibit their possession by most residents. The Justice Department's brief asserts that the Second Amendment "protects the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to possess arms that are commonly owned for lawful purposes."

"The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to possess arms that are commonly owned for lawful purposes."

— D. John Sauer, Solicitor General

Details of the Laws Challenged

Connecticut's law specifically targets AR-15 rifles and similar firearms. The statute includes an exception for firearms that were legally owned before the law took effect, but otherwise bans new possession of these weapons. Cook County, Illinois, has enacted a similar ordinance, also focusing on AR-15-style rifles and related firearms.

The Justice Department's brief highlights that these laws are aimed at a category of firearms that are among the most popular in the United States. According to the challengers, AR-15 rifles are commonly used for lawful activities such as self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. The brief maintains that categorical bans on such weapons are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The cases come before the Supreme Court amid an ongoing national debate over gun control and the scope of the Second Amendment. In previous landmark decisions, the Supreme Court has addressed the right to possess handguns for self-defense in the home, but the constitutionality of bans on so-called "assault weapons" like the AR-15 remains unsettled.

The Justice Department's brief, which is available on the Supreme Court's docket, emphasizes that its argument is limited to firearms that are "in common use" by law-abiding citizens. The department does not address restrictions on weapons that are not widely owned, nor does it take a position on other types of gun regulations. The brief is narrowly focused on the question of whether governments can ban a class of firearms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

Arguments from Both Sides

Supporters of the bans, including state and local officials, argue that AR-15-style rifles pose unique public safety risks due to their design and potential for rapid fire. They maintain that governments have the authority to restrict such weapons in the interest of reducing gun violence and protecting the public. These officials contend that the bans are a reasonable exercise of regulatory power and do not violate the Constitution.

On the other hand, opponents of the bans, including the Justice Department in this instance, argue that AR-15 rifles are among the most popular firearms in the country and are widely used by law-abiding citizens for legitimate purposes. They assert that categorical bans on such weapons are inconsistent with the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in previous rulings.

Next Steps and Uncertainty

As of the filing of the Justice Department's brief, state and local officials who support the bans had not publicly responded to the federal government's position. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated when it will decide whether to hear the cases or how it might ultimately rule on the constitutionality of the AR-15 bans. The outcome could have significant implications for gun laws nationwide, especially regarding the regulation of firearms that are widely owned and used for lawful purposes.

The Justice Department's intervention signals the federal government's stance on the issue, but the final decision will rest with the Supreme Court if it agrees to take up the cases. Until then, the legal status of state and local AR-15 bans remains uncertain, with both sides awaiting further action from the nation's highest court.

For those interested, the Justice Department's full brief is available on the Supreme Court's official docket.