A number of gun rights groups are asking the Supreme Court to hear a case that seeks to overturn Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and specifically AR-15s, on the grounds that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League and Second Amendment Foundation recently joined Eddie Grant, Jr.; Jennifer Hamilton; and Michael Stiefel in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the nation’s highest court to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15, that “are in common use for lawful purposes.” Their arguments focus on the AR-15 because it is the most popular rifle in the country and because they claim the way AR-15s and other covered weapons fire is “mechanically and functionally identical to every other semiautomatic firearm.”

The petition argues that a firearm cannot be banned if it is commonly used for lawful purposes and that, as AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the country, “it is hard to see what that phrase could possibly mean.”

State statute prohibits residents from owning an assault weapon except in certain circumstances, such as if an individual owned a covered weapon before the law went into effect. Assault weapons are defined in statute as any “self-selective firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user.” The law also specifically lists a number of semiautomatic firearms that fall under that definition, including AR-15s. AR stands for the original designer, ArmaLite Rifles, and not ‘automatic rifles’ as is sometimes thought.

That ban was put in place after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes after two previous rulings declining to overturn Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, one in Connecticut district court and in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The district court ruled against the petitioners, finding they did not establish that AR-style rifles are in “common use for self-defense” and therefore the issue did not invoke the Second Amendment as a defense. The court also found there is a historical precedent for regulating firearms as technology evolves and that the ban allows individuals other options to arm themselves in self-defense. A panel of the appeals court also rejected the petitioner’s arguments on similar grounds. They also found that AR-style rifles are “unusually dangerous” because of their characteristics and because of presumptions of legislators who vote to ban them that they are not used for lawful purposes of self-defense.

At issue in the case is how courts are interpreting the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark Second Amendment ruling that found the Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to self defense and does not just apply to militias. It overturned a Washington, DC ban on handguns but did find that states can impose some restrictions on guns.

“That Connecticut’s ban reaches the most popular rifle in the country suggests, if the decision below is correct, that no firearm in the country is protected except the handguns that this Court considered in Heller. Indeed, the panel comes close to saying as much.” the petitioners write in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

The petition argues in part that the district court’s finding that AR-style weapons are “unusually dangerous” is vague and, taken to its logical end, would allow legislators to ban any weapon they considered to be particularly dangerous. It also argues that lower courts need guidance on how to apply Heller and New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, another landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment that found a New York law requiring applicants for concealed carry licenses demonstrate a special need for a permit was unconstitutional because the right to bear arms in public was protected by the Second Amendment.

“Heller makes clear that “common use” is relevant to the historical inquiry mandated by Bruen because it is the correlative of the historical tradition of restricting ‘dangerous and unusual arms.” the petition states.

“The lower courts’ confusion on this point is consequential.” the petition continues. “Where common use fits into Bruen framework determines which party—the plaintiff or the government—shoulders the burden of establishing that a firearm is in common use (or dangerous and unusual).”

“Last term Justice Kavanaugh said that he suspected the Court would take up the assault weapons issue in the next term or two,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a press release announcing the filing of the petition. “Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and its time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.