Supreme Court AR-15 Case May Put Magazine Bans in the Crosshairs

The Supreme Court’s review of AR-15-platform rifle bans could have consequences for other Second Amendment fights, including magazine restrictions. IMG Jim Grant

As the 2025 session came to an end, the Supreme Court gave us a lovely parting gift: It agreed to review Grant v. Higgins* (25-566), Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, and Cutberto Viramontes v. Cook County (25-238), Cook County, Illinois’ version. In its grant of certiorari, the court rolled Grant into Viramontes with arguments to be scheduled for the Fall 2026 Term.

While there are lots of issues raised by Grant and Viramontes, the Supreme Court limited consideration to a single question: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”

Presumably, the court’s benchmark will be the Heller standard: In common use for lawful purposes, a test the AR-15 will easily pass with flying colors.

Gun rights and Second Amendment advocates were delighted the court, after years of kicking this particular can to a future term. However, there was a lot of disappointment because the court punted magazine bans again.

The Magazine Ban Question SCOTUS Didn’t Take

This is frustrating; Duncan v. Bonta was originally filed in 2017, and this is the second time it has been before the Supreme Court. The court GVR’d the case in 2022, and it went through the entire Ninth Circuit appellate process for a second time.

But this time, there’s a twist that could resolve the issue sooner rather than later.

Connecticut General Statute § 53-202a extends well beyond evil black rifles. It also includes the state’s ban on standard capacity magazines.

The Heller standard could be applied here, as well, but it isn’t needed. If AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms are covered by the Second Amendment, so are their parts – including magazines.

Magazines Are Not Optional Accessories

One of the silliest debates in gun control is whether detachable magazines are optional accessories or necessary components. Accessory adherents stake their argument on the ability use magazines of different capacities without otherwise affecting the gun. The design of the AR-15 platform rebuts this claim because the user can easily change the rifle’s caliber from .223 Remington to the slightly more powerful .300 AAC Blackout by exchanging the barrel.

Haven’t seen anyone claim the barrel is an accessory.

Since the Kalthoff Repeater was developed in 1630, repeating firearms have always required a magazine, cylinder, or similar mechanism. This is just as true for a bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action rifle as it is for an automatic or semiautomatic rifle.

Even the most ignorant, diehard gun-grabber will have to admit a repeating firearm isn’t really a repeater if there’s not a fresh cartridge on hand. This means a magazine is a critical component for a repeating firearm to operate as intended by the manufacturer.

The objection that a rifle could be manually loaded with one shot at a time is frivolous. It misses the point. A repeating firearm was designed and manufactured to fire multiple shots without reloading and was purchased by the consumer at least in part for that reason.

What sets automatic and semiautomatic firearms apart is the fact they are self-loading. They require no mechanical action by the user. A round is fired and the gun utilizes recoil or the gases created by the burning powder to eject the spent cartridge, strip a fresh round from the magazine, and reload the chamber.

Remington’s first semi-auto long gun was the 1906 Autoloading Rifle, which debuted a year after the Winchester Model 1905, the first semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine. The Winchester Model 1907 was the first to offer a magazine holding more than ten rounds.

The first ban on ‘large-capacity magazines’ was enacted in New Jersey in 1990, 83 years after the Winchester Model 1907 was introduced.

How does all of this work to justify adding magazine restrictions to the Supreme Court’s consideration of Viramontes? By recognizing magazines as necessary parts of a firearm, they automatically become weapons for Second Amendment purposes.

The AR-15, M1 Carbine, and Standard-Capacity Magazines

The Colt AR-15 Sporter went on sale in 1964. The standard (and original) magazine held 20 rounds. Colt did offer an insertable spacer that reduced capacity to five rounds to comply with state hunting laws.

The first AK-47 variant in the U.S. was the Valmet M62/S imported by Interarms beginning in 1969. Its sole magazine held 30 rounds.

Of course, there was always the World War II M1 Carbine sold as surplus in the hundreds of thousands by the U.S. government beginning around 1960. There was a choice of two magazines holding either 15 or 30 cartridges.

It’s important to remember both the Colt AR-15 and the Valmet M62/S were intended for sales into the civilian market.

So there is a solid link between what the ban fans call assault rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds.

The Rifle Case May Reach Further Than Rifle Bans

There has never been a verifiable reason for a ten-round limit. It’s been justified as based on an estimate the number of rounds fired in a citizen engagement. Using the same standard, police should be limited to carrying a total of 32 rounds instead of the 45 to 51 carried by uniformed patrol officers.

Former U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez questioned the ten-round limit’s provenance when he heard Duncan v. Bonta for the second time in September 2023. In his ruling, he found California’s defense “unpersuasive.”

It may seem like I took a long, roundabout way to get here but it’s the details underlying the reasoning. And it could reshape Duncan and Gator’s, or give the Court a reason to send them back for reconsideration.

*Originally filed as Grant v. Rovella

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/LNzYEjl
via IFTTT

Denver Gun Ban Faces New Lawsuit As Supreme Court Takes Up AR-15 Cases

FPC and CSSA filed Elliott v. Denver to challenge Denver’s so-called “assault weapon” ban and Colorado magazine restrictions as the Supreme Court prepares to hear major AR-15 ban cases. IMG Travis Pike

Denver’s long-running gun ban just picked up another serious legal problem.

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Colorado State Shooting Association have filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Denver’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and Denver’s and Colorado’s bans on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The case, Elliott v. Denver, was filed the same day the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear major challenges to “assault weapon” bans in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

Denver’s Ban Targets Common Semiautomatic Firearms

The plaintiffs argue that these bans infringe the right to keep and bear commonly possessed arms (including standard-capacity magazines) for self-defense, home defense, and other lawful purposes. They claim that these bans fail the Bruen standard (the text-and-history test). The first step in the Bruen analysis is to determine whether the conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. As affirmed by the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision, the question in step one is whether the plaintiffs are members of the “people.” The plaintiffs are undoubtedly part of the political community and therefore part of “the people.”

The second question in step one is whether the arm is bearable. Anti-gun attorneys and judges have tried to shoehorn other meanings into step one, such as claiming that the plain text does not cover “military-style” weapons. Wolford shut the door on this underhanded tactic. Courts can only consider if an arm is bearable, full stop. The latest Supreme Court Second Amendment cases make the localities’ job of defending such bans harder than ever.

After the text analysis is complete, the case moves to step two.

Colorado Magazine Ban Also Challenged

According to FPC, it will be up to the state and city to use the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulations from the founding era to prove that Denver’s bans are constitutional. FPC and the other plaintiffs do not believe that either Denver or Colorado can meet that burden. The complaint highlights that magazines with over 15 rounds have been common since the mid-19th century (for example, in Winchester rifles).

The plaintiffs also point to Heller. They argue that semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines are in common use today and thus cannot be banned as “dangerous and unusual.” Anti-gun defendants have tried to append “for self-defense” to the phrase “in common use,” but Wolford clarified that it is common use for both defensive and offensive purposes. Even if they could prove that AR-15s are not used for self-defense, they will not be able to prove that the firearms and magazines are not in common use for other lawful purposes.

The state will be hard-pressed to find historical analogues to support the city’s ban. What anti-gun states had success with in the past was shifting the relevant founding era from the ratification date of the Second Amendment (1791) to the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). This had allowed the states to use racist Black Codes from the Reconstruction era to justify modern bans, but the Supreme Court has been hostile to using racist gun laws to justify modern-day restrictions. Even from last year, the state’s task of defending Denver’s ban has become significantly harder.

DOJ Already Has Denver And Colorado In Court

The lawsuit asks the court to issue declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement of the bans, plus attorneys’ fees and costs under § 1983 and § 1988. This isn’t the only lawsuit the city is facing. The DOJ has also set its sights on the City’s ban.

With SCOTUS taking up two “assault weapons” ban cases, many believe that bans across the country might be heading to the trash heap of history.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/o3FsXxP
via IFTTT

New York’s War on the Second Amendment Escalated After Bruen

When the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in June of 2022, millions of Americans believed New York had finally been forced to respect the Constitution. The Court was clear. The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense, and government restrictions must be consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It was one of the most significant Second Amendment victories in American history. New York’s response? Defiance.

New York’s CCIA Was Albany’s Answer

Just eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a carry permit, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) into law. Rather than complying with the Court’s decision, Albany lawmakers rewrote the rulebook in an apparent attempt to accomplish through new legislation what they had just been forbidden from doing by the court. Except, the CCIA was more of the same, if not worse, legislation.

If Bruen was the Supreme Court telling New York, “You cannot deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms,” the CCIA was New York replying, “Watch us.” The state replaced one unconstitutional obstacle with dozens of new ones.

Suddenly, ordinary citizens who had jumped through every legal hoop were confronted with an ever-growing maze of restrictions. Sensitive locations multiplied across the state. Private property became off-limits by default. New requirements, extensive disclosures, interviews, character references, training mandates, social media invasions, and other bureaucratic hurdles transformed a constitutional right into an expensive, time-consuming privilege… and for most, a far-off dream.

And the lawsuits began.

The “Vampire Rule” and Sensitive-Place Problem

One after another, federal courts examined portions of New York’s new law. Some restrictions survived. Others did not. The prohibition on carrying on virtually all private property unless expressly permitted was struck down. This was nicknamed the “Vampire Rule,” because like a vampire in folklore, guns were not allowed in private businesses that were open to the public, unless they were specifically invited in.

Courts recognized that many of New York’s provisions simply had no historical analogue, which was the very test the Supreme Court required in Bruen.
Yet despite repeated courtroom losses, New York continued defending nearly every restriction it enacted.

This has become the state’s strategy: pass the law first, spend taxpayer dollars defending it later, and force citizens to spend years, and often hundreds of thousands of dollars, simply trying to reclaim rights they never should have lost in the first place. Then, if the people win, start the process all over again.

The damage, however, isn’t measured only in legal fees. It’s measured in public safety. Every time New York creates another “gun-free zone,” it creates another place where law-abiding citizens are disarmed while violent criminals remain unconcerned with compliance. Criminals do not consult maps of sensitive locations before committing robberies, assaults, or murders. They don’t pause to determine whether they’re violating Penal Law before pulling a trigger. Only the law-abiding do.

Permit Holders Became Targets of Bureaucracy

The predictable result is that the people most likely to obey these laws become the least capable of defending themselves when violence erupts. The irony is impossible to ignore, but somehow Hochul and her Democrat majority state legislature have managed to do a fine job of it.

Politicians claim these restrictions make New Yorkers safer while simultaneously ensuring that responsible citizens are unable to defend themselves during the very moments, they need that protection most. The state has effectively told millions of permit holders, “You have the right to carry a firearm, just not where you’re most likely to need one.”

Out-of-State Gun Owners Face a Legal Minefield

But the problem extends beyond New York residents. Visitors from every other state in the nation face a legal minefield the moment they cross the border into New York. A concealed carry permit that is recognized throughout much of the country becomes meaningless upon entering The Empire State. Travelers who have undergone background checks, completed training, and carried responsibly for years can suddenly become criminals simply because New York refuses to recognize permits issued by other states. This is not to say that carry permits are an acceptable requirement in the first place, but if NY is going to turn a God given right into a government issued privilege, it should at least offer the same to out of state visitors.

Imagine a woman who legally carries a firearm every day in Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Florida. She drives into New York to visit family or attend an event. The firearm she lawfully carried for personal protection moments earlier has now become the basis for felony charges if she fails to navigate one of the most confusing hodgepodge of firearm laws in America.

The message couldn’t be clearer. New York doesn’t trust its own citizens. It doesn’t trust visitors from other states. It doesn’t trust permit holders who have passed background investigations. It doesn’t even trust the Constitution after the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The state trusts only government control. Or maybe, it’s not about trust at all and more about making sure that any and all political opposition to the supermajority Democrat legislature is put in a perpetual state of unarmed helplessness.

What makes this particularly troubling is that every legislative defeat seems to produce another attempt to regulate around constitutional protections. Instead of respecting judicial decisions, New York lawmakers search for new angles, new restrictions, and new ways to burden a right that the Constitution commands “shall not be infringed.”

No other constitutional right is treated this way.

Imagine requiring citizens to obtain government permission before publishing a newspaper article, attend eighteen hours of training before speaking publicly, or be prohibited from attending church because the building happened to be located within a designated “sensitive area.” Yet when the right involved is the Second Amendment, many elected officials suddenly become comfortable treating constitutional protections as negotiable.

They are not.

Why the Fight Is Bigger Than New York

The Constitution does not become optional because a governor disagrees with it.

Fundamental rights are not granted by Albany. They are recognized by the Constitution and protected from government infringement. That is precisely why Bruen mattered. It reminded the nation that constitutional rights do not depend upon whether politicians approve of them.

Unfortunately, New York’s response demonstrated that some politicians still believe constitutional rights are merely obstacles to be worked around.

For four years, lawful gun owners have endured an exhausting cycle of unconstitutional legislation, expensive litigation, and endless uncertainty. Every court victory has been met with another government effort to preserve restrictions that lack any historical or constitutional foundation. This should concern every American, regardless of where they stand on firearms, because when government can ignore one constitutional right after the Supreme Court has spoken, every constitutional right becomes less secure. The Second Amendment was never intended to exist only where politicians find it convenient, and freedom was never supposed to require permission from those who are determined to restrict it.

Could a New Governor Change Course?

There may, however, be reason for cautious optimism. If Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman is elected governor, New York could see a markedly different approach to the Second Amendment. Blakeman has consistently presented himself as a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and has been openly critical of policies that burden law-abiding gun owners while doing little to stop violent criminals.

While no governor can erase every unconstitutional law with the stroke of a pen, many restrictions are written into statute and would require legislative action or continued court victories. A governor committed to defending constitutional rights could reshape the state’s priorities. That includes directing state agencies to respect the limits established by the Supreme Court, ending the relentless defense of questionable restrictions in court, and focusing law enforcement resources on violent offenders instead of responsible citizens exercising a fundamental constitutional right.

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/p0jP3g9
via IFTTT

Hawaii Firearms Coalition Warns Businesses: ‘No Guns’ Signs Could Cost More Than Customers

The Hawaii Firearms Coalition is encouraging business owners to carefully consider the impact of posting “No Firearms Allowed” signs following the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision. iStock-1453704487

The Hawaii Firearms Coalition is urging businesses across the Aloha State to think twice before posting “No Firearms Allowed” signs following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Wolford v. Lopez.

The ruling struck down Hawaii’s default ban on carrying firearms onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express consent. Instead, businesses must now decide for themselves whether to allow licensed concealed carry or prohibit it by posting signs. As business owners weigh that decision, the Hawaii Firearms Coalition has released an open letter arguing that “No Guns” signs won’t stop criminals but they will drive away law-abiding customers.

The coalition’s letter focuses on the economic consequences of banning lawful carry. Hawaii is home to more than 150,000 registered firearm owners, representing roughly one in five households. HIFICO warned that many of those gun owners may simply take their business elsewhere rather than patronize establishments that prohibit lawful concealed carry.

“We fully recognize that private property owners have the right to set their own policies,” the coalition wrote. “We simply ask that you make that decision with a full understanding of the potential consequences.”

But there is another question business owners should consider before posting those signs: if you choose to disarm your customers, what responsibility do you assume for protecting them?

An Open Letter to Hawaii Businesses and Business Owners

As businesses across Hawaii consider whether to post “No Firearms Allowed” signs, we ask that you take a moment to carefully consider the long-term impact of that decision.

Hawaii is home to more than 150,000 registered… pic.twitter.com/obS41a2Zhh

— Hawaii Firearms Coalition (HIFICO) (@hificoorg) July 7, 2026

Disarming Customers Doesn’t End a Business’s Responsibility

A business has every right to prohibit firearms on its property. But rights come with responsibilities.

When an owner tells law-abiding citizens they cannot provide for their own defense, the obvious question becomes: what security is the business providing instead? If tragedy strikes, that question could become far more than rhetorical as attorneys examine whether the business took reasonable steps to protect the very people it chose to disarm.

Businesses generally owe customers a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. Under premises liability law, property owners can face negligent security lawsuits if they fail to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts.

Whether a business provided adequate security depends on numerous factors, including prior criminal activity at the location, crime trends in the surrounding area, lighting, surveillance systems, security personnel, employee training, and other protective measures.

If a business decides that customers cannot provide for their own defense, a plaintiff’s attorney could argue that the business assumed greater responsibility to provide reasonable protection through other security measures. Whether such an argument succeeds depends on the facts of the case and applicable state law, but it is a legal theory businesses should understand before adopting restrictive firearm policies.

Security Isn’t Just About Signs

Some businesses appear to believe that posting a “No Guns” sign is, by itself, a safety policy. It isn’t.

A sign does not screen customers for criminal intent. It does not prevent armed robbery. It does not stop a violent attacker from entering a store.

Actual security requires investment. Trained personnel, surveillance, emergency planning, and other measures appropriate for the business and its location.

Businesses that prohibit lawful concealed carry while providing little or no additional security may eventually find themselves answering difficult questions after a violent incident.

A Decision With Multiple Consequences

The Supreme Court’s decision restored the ability of Hawaii’s concealed carry permit holders to lawfully carry firearms onto most private property open to the public unless the owner chooses to prohibit them.

That means the decision now rests squarely with individual business owners.

Some will undoubtedly decide to post “No Firearms Allowed” signs. Others may conclude that welcoming law-abiding, licensed gun owners is the better choice for both customer relations and personal safety.

HIFICO’s letter encourages businesses to consider the economic consequences of turning away responsible customers. That’s a reasonable point.

But business owners should also recognize that a firearm prohibition is not a substitute for real security. If they decide to disarm lawful patrons, they should also evaluate whether the security measures they have in place are adequate to protect the customers they have chosen to protect themselves.

When the unthinkable happens, a sign on the door won’t be the only thing anyone examines.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/qvTW2Rx
via IFTTT

Viramontes Could Be The Beginning Of The End For AR-15 Bans

The Supreme Court will hear Viramontes and Grant, two cases challenging bans on AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned semiautomatic firearms. IMG Duncan Johnson

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidating the matters to directly confront a constitutional question that activist lower courts have spent years dodging: whether the Second Amendment protects modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

This historic announcement marks the end of the beginning. For over a decade, gun-control advocates have relied on judicial passivity and interest-balancing tests to sustain draconian bans on America’s most popular rifles. That era is over. Under the strict text, history, and tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), these bans are constitutionally indefensible. The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a definitive victory for the Second Amendment, invalidating “assault weapon” bans nationwide.

The Mathematical Reality of “Common Use”

To understand why Viramontes will sound the death knell for these bans, one must look to the clear roadmap laid down in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Court explicitly rejected the notion that the government can ban an entire class of arms chosen by the American public for lawful purposes. Id. at 628–29. The core constitutional threshold is whether an arm is “in common use” today.

Lower courts, eager to uphold categorical prohibitions, have intentionally twisted this standard. In the decisions below, the Second and Seventh Circuits treated the AR-15 as an “unusual” weapon, a premise that collapses under the weight of basic math.

• The Production Data: According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and recent federal manufacturing data, there are now over 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs)—overwhelmingly AR-15 platform rifles—in civilian circulation in the United States.
• The Ownership Metric: Empirical data from the National Firearms Survey indicates that between 16 million and 24.6 million individual Americans own an AR-15.

To assert that a rifle platform owned by upwards of 24 million citizens and numbering over 32 million units is “unusual” is a legal absurdity. As a point of legal comparison, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 420 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring), held that approximately 200,000 tasers nationwide was more than enough to satisfy the “common use” test. If 200,000 units triggers absolute Second Amendment protection, then 32 million modern sporting rifles command an unassailable constitutional shield.

The AR-15 outnumbers the Ford F-150, the best-selling vehicle in America, by a margin of more than two-to-one. Under any rational metric of jurisprudence, if an arm is the single most popular rifle in the nation, it is the absolute definition of common use. See Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025) (acknowledging that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country”).

Dismantling the “Weapons of War” Fallacy

Under any rational metric of jurisprudence, if an arm is the single most popular rifle in the nation, it is the mathematical definition of common use. Even the Supreme Court itself has already abandoned the lower courts’ delusion, explicitly recognizing that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025).

Faced with an overwhelming mountain of math, gun-control proponents are forced to completely detach themselves from reality, relying instead on a highly dishonest talking point: that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” that belongs only on the battlefield. This argument is a technical and historical fraud that lower courts have shoehorned onto the law. The Supreme Court has already drawn the line between protected civilian arms and unprotected military ordnance. In Heller, the Court noted that weapons that are “dangerous and unusual”—specifically citing M16 rifles and fully automatic machine guns—may be restricted because they are not in common civilian use. Heller, 554 U.S. at 627.

The state attempts to conflate the civilian AR-15 with the military M16 or M4, but the two are fundamentally distinct classes of technology:

• Fire Control: The military M16 is a selective-fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire or three-round bursts. The civilian AR-15 is strictly a semi-automatic firearm. It fires exactly one round per pull of the trigger, utilizing the exact same internal operating mechanism found in ordinary hunting shotguns and rimfire plinking rifles since the early 20th century.
• The Legislative Precedent: The Supreme Court recognized this exact distinction decades ago in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). In Staples, the Court observed that internal automatic parts are what characterize a weapon of war, whereas civilian semi-automatic AR-15s “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions.” Id. at 612.
• The Feature Fallacy: State bans do not target the kinetic power or lethality of the firearm; they target cosmetic, ergonomic features. Features like a telescoping stock (which adjusts the rifle to fit the physical stature of different shooters), a pistol grip (which provides an ergonomic hold), or a handguard (which keeps a shooter from burning their hands) do not alter the semi-automatic mechanics of the rifle.

The military has never deployed the civilian AR-15 to any combat theater in history. It is a purpose-built civilian platform. Calling it a “weapon of war” is a political slogan, not a constitutional argument.

The Hunting Red Herring and the True Purpose of the Second Amendment

Equally misleading is the standard political refrain that “you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer.” This argument fails on two distinct levels: one practical, and one deeply rooted in constitutional law.

Practically, the assertion that AR-15 style rifles are not used or needed for hunting is laughably ignorant. The modularity of the AR platform makes it the premier hunting rifle in modern America. Its adjustable stock accommodates shooters of varying physical sizes, including youth and female hunters, and its lightweight polymer and aluminum construction makes it highly portable across rough terrain. Furthermore, the standard chambering of the AR-15, the .223 Remington / 5.56x45mm NATO round, is the industry standard for varmint control, predator hunting (such as coyotes), and managing invasive feral hog populations that plague American agricultural lands. When chambered in larger calibers like the .300 Blackout, 6.5mm Grendel, or .350 Legend, the AR platform is widely and successfully utilized for medium-to-large game hunting.

Constitutionally, however, the hunting argument is a complete red herring. The Second Amendment was not ratified to protect a recreational right to harvest wild game. As the Supreme Court explicitly held in Heller, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, pre-existing right rooted in the natural law of self-preservation. Heller, 554 U.S. at 581, 592. The Founders did not design the Bill of Rights to safeguard sport; they designed it to safeguard liberty against both criminal aggression and political tyranny.

The actual purpose of the Second Amendment, per the Founding Fathers, was to ensure that the citizenry possessed the material means to resist oppression. The historical record on this point is bulletproof.

“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

The Founders recognized that an armed populace is the ultimate structural check against a government that oversteps its constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton made this explicit in The Federalist No. 28, writing that if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, the citizens must exert “that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success.” The Federalist No. 28, p. 178 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Similarly, James Madison in The Federalist No. 46 contrasted the American republic with the tyrannies of Europe by boasting of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” The Federalist No. 46, p. 299. The European monarchies, Madison noted, were afraid to trust their citizens with arms because doing so would instantly smash their tyrannical rule.

To suggest that a modern firearm can be banned because it is not “necessary” for hunting is to completely wipe out the core principles of the American Founding. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess the definitive, standard infantry rifle of the contemporary era, precisely because it ensures the preservation of a free state.

Because the AR-15 falls squarely within the Second Amendment’s plain text, the burden shifts entirely to the government under Bruen. To sustain a restriction, the state must affirmatively demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. Historically, American law has never tolerated the categorical ban of an entire class of firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens. The modern cosmetic features targeted by statutes in Illinois and Connecticut have absolutely no historical analogues in 1791 or 1868. Under Bruen, the absence of a founding-era analogue for banning a common, linear ancestor of the typical American rifle is fatal to the government’s case.

The Court’s recent adherence to historical methodology in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 574 (2024), confirms that while historical twins are not required, any modern restriction must still match the distinct why and how of an ancestral law. Because early America never banned rifles based on visual configurations or modular utility, modern “assault weapon” feature tests fail the Bruen inquiry entirely.

The Remedial Landscape Post-CASA

Crucially, the practical stakes of Viramontes have been dramatically heightened by another landmark decision from this past term: Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). In CASA, the Supreme Court severely restricted the equitable powers of lower federal courts, ruling 6–3 that universal or nationwide injunctions exceed traditional equitable authority. Id. at 835. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett made clear that federal courts may only fashion relief “tailored to the parties before the court.” Id. This structural shift reshapes how Second Amendment litigation protects citizens moving forward.

Post-CASA, when a federal district court strikes down a gun control measure or issues a preliminary injunction, that relief does not automatically protect every citizen across the jurisdiction. Instead, under the strictures of CASA, the injunction provides complete relief exclusively to the named plaintiffs and the specific members of the organizational entities involved in the suit. Consequently, individual gun owners seeking immediate safe harbor under favorable lower court decrees must now rely heavily on direct association with these lawsuits to be covered by the judicial shield.

The convergence of Bruen’s unyielding historical command and CASA’s refined remedial boundaries sets the stage for a historic legal battle in Viramontes. The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari to rubber-stamp the contorted logic of the circuit courts. By consolidating these cases, the High Court intends to resolve the fractured landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence once and for all.

When the historical record is read the way our Founders intended, and for that, thank you, Justice Thomas, the modern gun-control agenda completely falls apart. The AR-15 is the typical American rifle of our time, chosen by millions of citizens to exercise their birthright of self-preservation. By liberating the Second Amendment from decades of lower-court hostility, the Supreme Court will permanently dismantle these lawless bans. In doing so, they will ensure that the right to keep and bear arms remains secure for our children and grandchildren. For millions of law-abiding citizens, this case isn’t just about a rifle; it’s about defending the sacred right to protect our families, our homes, and our freedom for generations to come.

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

from https://ift.tt/oUDX4bO
via IFTTT

Virginia Judges Reject State’s Bid To Combine Gun-Ban Lawsuits

A Virginia judicial panel denied the Commonwealth’s attempt to centralize four lawsuits challenging the state’s new gun-control laws. img Duncan Johnson

Virginia’s attempt to consolidate four separate challenges to its new gun-control laws into a single courtroom has failed.

A judicial panel denied the Commonwealth’s application to transfer Santolla v Katz, Crump v Katz, Curtis v Katz, and Black v Hook into a single proceeding, finding that the state had not met the legal burden required for such a move. The ruling keeps the lawsuits in the courts where gun owners, gun-rights groups, and firearms businesses chose to file them.

After passing new restrictions on so-called “assault firearms” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” Virginia officials sought to consolidate multiple lawsuits challenging different parts of the scheme. The state argued that one centralized forum would reduce the risk of duplicative or inconsistent rulings and make things more convenient for government lawyers.

VICTORY

A three judge panel in Virginia just DENIED consolidation of the cases filed against @SpanbergerForVA‘s slew of anti-gun legislation.

This is huge benefit for every case filed because they can now proceed in their own courts. https://t.co/xo9yZIBwpR pic.twitter.com/X1qjpxxIGk

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) July 6, 2026

Virginia Wanted One Courtroom For Four Different Cases

In their opposition, the Crump plaintiffs put it plainly: “If Applicants wish to enforce their infringements statewide, they should be willing to defend those infringements statewide.”

John Crump, one of the plaintiffs in Crump v. Katz and an AmmoLand News contributor, welcomed the panel’s decision.

“I am happy that Jay Jones attempt to consolidate the cases have failed. The law is clearly unconstitutional and we look forward to proving it in court,” Crump said.

Virginia politicians enacted statewide restrictions affecting law-abiding gun owners across the Commonwealth. Now that those citizens have sued in their own communities, the state wants the litigation moved to a forum more convenient for Richmond.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 13.5" M-Lok Railed Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99

The panel was not persuaded. In its findings, the panel said common questions of law or fact do not predominate across the actions. While the cases have some logical connection, the panel found they do not share the same statutory framework and that the fundamental questions are not the same.

The Crump opposition laid out why. Crump v. Katz raises statutory-interpretation questions about what conduct remains lawful under the challenged statutes, including issues involving multicaliber magazines, the manufacture of new “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and semiautomatic shotguns with more than one prohibited characteristic. Crump and Santolla also challenge Virginia’s public-carry restrictions on so-called “assault firearms.”

Black v. Hook goes in a different direction, raising a federal Second Amendment claim, a Virginia right-to-hunt claim, and vagueness claims. Curtis v. Katz primarily focuses on the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

In other words, these are not four carbon-copy lawsuits with different captions. They are separate attacks on a sweeping gun-control regime, brought by different plaintiffs, in different places, under different legal theories.

Panel Finds Transfer Was Not Justified

The panel also rejected the Commonwealth’s convenience argument. It noted that some plaintiffs would face significant inconvenience if forced to travel to another forum during normal working hours and potentially pay for travel and lodging. The Commonwealth, by contrast, did not claim inconvenience to its own employees.

Perhaps the most important part of the ruling is the panel’s recognition that the cases were already too far along for transfer to solve the state’s stated problem. Separate courts had already heard arguments and declarations on preliminary injunctions, and courts had ruled on preliminary injunctions in three of the four cases.

As the panel put it: “It is too late to properly prevent inconsistent rulings.”

Why This Matters For Virginia Gun Owners

This is not a final ruling on whether Virginia’s gun bans violate the Virginia Constitution, the Second Amendment, or any other protection. But it is a meaningful procedural defeat for the Commonwealth.

Virginia wanted to simplify its defense of a broad anti-gun agenda. Instead, it will have to defend that agenda where gun owners brought their cases.

If the Commonwealth wants to enforce its bans statewide, it can answer for them statewide.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/Q417Uyl
via IFTTT

Johns Hopkins Public Carry Guide Revives Old Gun-Control Myths

Johns Hopkins’ new public carry permitting guide urges lawmakers to tighten carry laws, but gun-rights advocates say the recommendations ignore Bruen and revive old gun-control arguments. iStock-901659046

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Heath’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions (CGVS) recently released its Public Carry Permitting Guide.

It’s the latest in a series. Previous titles include: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (March 2024), Safe Storage (March 2025), and Firearm Purchaser Licensing (July 2025).

From the outset, the reader should be aware that while the CGVS’ mailing address may be in Baltimore, its physical address is clearly somewhere in the Twilight Zone.

In its latest release, the CGVS claims when states relax carry laws, they experience increased ‘gun violence’.

To solve this, the CGVS says we must clamp down on the permissive trend in American carry laws.The group proposes 15 areas for improvement (I.e., much more restrictive).

Channeling their inner Rod Serlings, the Baltimore Bloomborgs are unfazed by the fact the U.S. average annual murder rate since 2003, when Alaska joined Vermont as the second permitless carry state, was 30% lower than the previous average dating back to 1960.

The CGVS acknowledges Bruen but ignores it by including some measures the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional.

The Public Carry Permitting Guide has other fundamental flaws.

First problem: ‘Gun violence’ encompasses all firearm-related injuries and deaths. This includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter, justifiable homicide, negligent manslaughter, self-harm (suicide), unintentional/accidental discharges, and aggravated assault.

However, the CGVS’ topic is carrying a gun, so suicides and accidents aren’t implicated. This eliminates the majority of firearm-related fatalities and levels the playing field. Michael Bloomberg and his adherents will vigorously protest the exclusion of suicides because they are the only type of firearm-related death that is increasing.

Next, suicides are not evenly distributed across the U.S. In the District of Columbia, for example, more than 90% of gun-related deaths in 2024 were homicides; in New Hampshire, 88% of gun deaths are suicides.

[Since the CDC is reluctant to estimate the number of non-fatal gunshots, we’re using homicides as our yardstick.]

Another critical factor is demographics, specifically race, ethnicity, and gender. I am sure any number of gun-grabbers will be clutching their pearls, but it’s impossible to fix a problem when you won’t be honest enough to face it.

In 2024, the homicide victimization rate for White, non-Hispanic, urban males ages 13-29 was 2.89 per 100,000 of the demographic population. We changed just one parameter, race, and the rate soared to 71.94 per 100,000. Black, non-Hispanic, urban males, ages 13-29, accounted for just 1.4% of the U.S. population. They were the victims of more than 22% of all gun-related homicides.

In the introduction, the Permitting Guide says:

“Historically, states made it difficult to legally carry a gun in public. Public carry of firearms was either entirely prohibited or only allowed after a rigorous permit application process.”

CGVS says the sources for this statement are Mark Frasseto and Saul Cornell. Frassetto is the Deputy Director of Second Amendment History and Scholarship at Everytown Law; Cornell holds the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University.

Cornell may be familiar to some; he’s developed quite following among gun-grabbers by claiming the Second Amendment protects only a collective right connected to militia service.

Farsetto and Cornell are way off base. What appeared during the 19th Century was legislative interest in regulating concealed carry of firearms and other weapons, such as Bowie knives. In the post-Civil War period, carry restrictions were most often aimed at the newly emancipated slaves, Native Americans, and other racial/ethnic groups.

Many states allowed permitless open carry or never regulated open carry at all.

The history of Texas provides some insight. From the founding of the Republic in 1835 until the Reconstruction Era, the Texas Constitution said pretty much the same thing: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State.”

However, in the Constitution of 1869, there was a change: “Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe.”

As often happens when politicians gain a little more power, the Texas Legislature wasted no time.

On April 12, 1871, the Texas Legislature passed An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, better known as the Act of April 12, 1871.

“Section 1: Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, slung-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass-knuckles, bowie-knife, or any other kind of knife manufactured or sold for the purposes of offense or defense, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof shall, for the first offense, be punished by fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, and shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person; and for every subsequent offense may, in addition to such fine and forfeiture, be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not exceeding sixty days.”

Other than the exemptions for military service, law enforcement, and a vague carve-out for travelers, the only other exception was in Section 4:

“This act shall not apply to, nor be enforced in any county of the State, which may be designated, in a proclamation of the Governor, as a frontier county, and liable to incursions of hostile Indians.”

This was the strongest prohibition on handgun carry in the United States. No licenses, no exceptions for natural disasters, border disputes with Mexico, bands of outlaws, or those carrying large sums of money or other valuables.

Penalties for violations increased until UCA (Unlawful Carrying of Arms) was classed as a Class A misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine for the first offense.

It was a gun-grabber’s ultimate fantasy.

Rifles and shotguns weren’t even mentioned in Texas carry laws. Then, as now, you could walk down the middle of Congress Avenue in Austin toting any long gun.

The 1871 statute remained in effect for 124 years. On May 26, 1995, Governor George W. Bush signed Senate Bill 60, authorizing the first handgun carry permit in the history of the Lone Star State.

Even though the carry ban was passed more than a year after Texas ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was a racist Black Code law.

My maternal grandmother was born in Luling, Texas, in 1889. Somewhere in the 1909-1912 time period, she was photographed before attending a social. She was chaperoned by her older brothers, one of whom had what appears to be a Colt Army Special or New Service revolver stuck in his waistband.

I asked if he wasn’t concerned about an encounter with law enforcement. “That law was just for Mexicans and Indians,” she told me.

The mass shooting at the Luby’s Cafeteria in 1991, which left 23 dead and 27 wounded, was one of the major factors in the end of the prohibition. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor who lost both of her parents in the massacre, had a handgun locked in her car in accordance with the Texas carry ban.

There aren’t any guarantees in situations like this, but had that revolver been in her purse, she could have intervened.

She spent four years lobbying to get carry reform through the Texas Legislature. Ann Richards, Texas’ last Democratic governor, fiercely opposed the change and promised to veto any carry permit law. She even refused to allow the Legislature to hold a voter referendum.

Richards was joined by the usual doomsayers predicting a bloodbath. The Texas Police Chiefs Association said licensees should have at least the same level of firearm training required for law enforcement officers.

Democrats controlled the House and Senate but bipartisan majorities in both chambers sent Senate Bill 60 to George W. Bush, Texas’ first Republican governor since the Reconstruction.

The Texas Department of Public Safety began accepting Concealed Handgun License applications on January 1, 1996.

Did blood run in the streets of Waxahachie? High-noon showdowns in Abilene?

No. In fact, the 1996 murder rate was 15% lower than the 1995 rate.

Comparing the average murder rate from ten years before the change to the first ten years after shows the rate plunged 48 percent and there were nearly 8.000 fewer murders.

The last vestige of the 1871 statute were swept away 150 years after it passed. On June 16, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1927 and Texas became a constitutional carry state. From 2022 to 2025, the violent crime rate dropped 21 percent and the murder rate plunged 34 percent.

The CGVS Public Carry Permitting Guide is cherry-picking and manipulation on an Olympian scale; there aren’t enough Pinocchios in the world to do it justice.

We already know gun control addicts have no shame but Johns Hopkins University should be very embarrassed.

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/KOzvyIq
via IFTTT