The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will review bans on semiautomatic rifles, a move that could further expand the market for weapons often described as military-grade. Justices will hear appeals challenging existing prohibitions on AR-15s and similar firearms in Connecticut and the Chicago area. Oral arguments are anticipated in the fall.
These types of laws are currently in effect in roughly a dozen states, encompassing major urban centers such as New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. Congress allowed a national ban on these weapons to expire in 2004, marking its 22nd anniversary this year. Despite this, Democrats have consistently advocated for its renewal following a series of mass shootings, and states like Virginia and Rhode Island have recently enacted their own measures.
The Court's Trajectory
This case arrives before a Supreme Court that has consistently expanded gun rights. In 2022, the court issued a landmark ruling, now in its 4th anniversary, which broadened Second Amendment protections and spurred challenges to firearm regulations nationwide. This term alone, the court affirmed Second Amendment rights in two separate cases, overturning gun carry restrictions in Hawaii and a sweeping federal ban on gun ownership for marijuana users. However, it has previously upheld some limitations, including a law prohibiting individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
Connecticut's law was enacted after a mass shooter utilized an AR-15 to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, an event now marking its 14th anniversary. The state contends these weapons are favored by mass shooters and can be banned due to their similarity to military-grade armaments. Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at the gun-control group Everytown Law, stated, “These laws are critical public safety measures, and they are consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The Market for Arms
Gun rights organizations argue that banning semiautomatic rifles, legally owned by millions of Americans, is unconstitutional. Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, asserted, “The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.” This statement highlights the sheer scale of the domestic arms market.
Four conservative justices on the nine-member court, the minimum required to grant review, had previously indicated that the court would eventually address this issue. The ban in Cook County, Illinois, was initially passed in 1993, now in its 33rd anniversary. Lower courts have consistently upheld both the Connecticut and Cook County statutes.
Human Cost, State Action
Attorneys challenging the bans wrote, “If the Second Amendment does not protect the most popular rifles in the country, it is hard to see how it protects any firearms at all,” beyond handguns kept in the home. Conversely, attorneys for Cook County maintained the measure's constitutionality, stating, “The trauma that assault weapon massacres have inflicted on the public at large has been staggering.” The court also declined Tuesday to hear a series of cases concerning gun restrictions for young adults under age 21, an issue that has sharply divided lower courts in recent years.