We told you back in August that the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether AR-15-platform rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. Since then, the case has picked up a supporter most gun owners wouldn’t expect: sheriffs.
Where the case stands
Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated into a single case, ask the Court to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The cases challenge “assault weapons” bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. Petitioners filed their merits brief on August 28. Respondents have until October 21 to answer, oral argument is projected for early December, and a decision isn’t expected until June 2027. Twelve states’ assault weapons bans hang on the outcome.
Law enforcement weighing in
What’s new since our last update is the wave of amicus briefs filed by early September, and one group stands out. The Western States Sheriffs’ Association filed a brief in support of the petitioners, arguing that the AR-15 “is just like any other semi-automatic rifle,” firing one round per trigger pull with ammunition no more powerful than comparable rifles, and that law-abiding citizens need reliable weapons for self-defense.
That matters because gun-control advocates have spent years framing “assault weapons” bans as public-safety measures that law enforcement supports. A sheriffs’ organization telling the Supreme Court that its own members don’t see the AR-15 as a unique threat cuts directly against that framing, and it comes from a constituency the Court doesn’t typically hear from on the anti-ban side.
The United States also filed as amicus in support of petitioners, arguing the AR-15 is “unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” and is now lawful at the federal level and in 40 states. Cato Institute, a coalition of eleven state-based firearms advocacy organizations, and groups representing minority and LGBTQ gun owners, the National African American Gun Association, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, the Liberal Gun Club, and Pink Pistols, also filed briefs backing the petitioners.
The other side hasn’t gone quiet
Everytown Law, representing the gun-control position, has been blunt about what it thinks is at stake. Managing director Janet Carter called assault weapons “the weapons of choice for mass shooters” and pointed out that four federal circuits have upheld assault weapon bans since Bruen, with 11 states and Washington D.C. currently enforcing them. Respondents haven’t filed their merits brief yet, but expect similar arguments, backed by their own law enforcement voices, when they do.
The sheriffs’ filing complicates the “law enforcement wants this ban” narrative that’s been a staple of the gun-control side’s messaging for years.
Neither the Cook County nor the Connecticut ban has been suspended while the case proceeds. If you live in one of the twelve affected states, the ban is still enforced today regardless of what’s happening at the Supreme Court.
What it means for Texas gun owners
This case will set the national baseline for what “common use” means under the Second Amendment, and that baseline shapes every future fight, including ones that could eventually reach Texas if the political winds ever shifted here.
If you own an AR-15, whichever way this case comes out, make sure you’re actually proficient with it. A rifle that’s legal to own and a rifle you can run competently under stress are two different things. Get real trigger time, not just range days spent punching paper at a fixed distance.
Train hard. Train smart. Train safe.
AI assisted research and editing. Human verified and finalized.
Leave a Reply