* Reuters…
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles, giving the justices another chance to expand gun rights in a case that involves a type of weapon often associated with mass shootings.
The justices took up two appeals after lower courts upheld bans in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut on powerful semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in its next term, which begins in October.
* The Sun-Times…
The justices said the two petitions were granted specifically as to the question raised in the Cook County case.
That is, “whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles?”
A 2022 Supreme Court ruling laid out a two-step test for such gun laws. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices held that if an individual’s conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, the government must then demonstrate that the law is “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Certain Supreme Court justices have since shown an interest in considering the constitutionality of assault weapons bans. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 2024 that, if the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can — and should — review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.”
* Crain’s…
Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya challenged the Cook County regulation with the backing of the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation. […]
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Cook County residents note that the justices have recently declined to take up the issue of assault-weapons bans, but that Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh had observed in an opinion that “this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”
The Cook County residents said, “This case provides the court with a vehicle for following through on Justice Kavanaugh’s recommendation.”
Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, in a brief urging the justices not to review the case, said that for more than 30 years, county officials “have been faced with the overwhelming, mounting, and unrefuted evidence showing that assault rifles are the weapon of choice for criminals and terrorists set on quickly massacring innocents, but are rarely put to lawful public use. They have thus determined that this warrants a prohibition on the possession of those weapons within the county’s target-rich and crowded urban confines.”
* More…
* SCOTUSblog | The Supreme Court and the right to bear arms: an explainer: The right to have semiautomatic rifles (such as the AR-15) is one of the most prominent Second Amendment issues still to be decided by the court. A semiautomatic rifle is a type of firearm which fires a bullet “each time the trigger is pulled, automatically ejecting the spent casing and reloading a new round.” So far, no federal court of appeals has struck down a state ban on these types of arms, although a few district courts have done so (and some of those cases are waiting to be decided by the appellate courts). Currently, there are at least two petitions pending before the Supreme Court on this issue: Viramontes v. Cook County and National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont.
* Reuters | US Supreme Court turns away cases testing firearm age restrictions: The justices turned away appeals challenging a federal ban on handgun purchases by people ages 18 to 20, as well as a similar state law in Florida imposing the same age requirement on all firearms purchases. Lower courts rejected the arguments by plaintiffs in those cases that those laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
- Think Again - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 12:24 pm:
= That is, “whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles?”=
2A advocates have been waiting years for SCOTUS to finally decide the constitutional merits of these bans - rather than some technicality or standing issue. Glad that it is an Illinois case that will be heard.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 12:36 pm:
the referendum to support the ban was passed overwhelmingly by voters. Fewer people voted against the ban idea than voted against the question to end the war in Iraq.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 12:36 pm:
I’ve been wondering if SCOTUS was waiting for PICA to come down from the 7th. The PICA case had a lot of time put into it. We’ll never know now.
It’s probably past time to get a ruling on this so states and citizens know where they stand.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 12:43 pm:
You cant tell someone you cant bring gun on your own property anymore. You know George, Tom, Ben and the gang all had that in mind in the late 1700’s. May as well let ‘em bring AK-967s too because those were around when the country was founded. I’m an originalist like Clay, Juanita, and Brittany.
- fs - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 12:48 pm:
== You cant tell someone you cant bring gun on your own property anymore.==
I’ve heard this line a few times since that opinion came out, and it’s not true. You can absolutely prohibit someone from carrying a weapon on your property. The opinion expressly made that clear. Read the actual opinion instead of a spin on it.
- sulla - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 12:59 pm:
Great news. Hope the ban gets overturned ASAP.
- Illiana - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 1:08 pm:
Jerry- As fs mentions, I’ve seen people repeatedly use that line, which isn’t the case. They ruled against Hawaii’s law that required private property, like resorts for example, to put up signs that explicitly say guns are allowed for someone to carry, and if they didn’t, by state law they were considered automatically banned. It’s literally the opposite of how pretty much every other state and jurisdiction handles gun-free zones on private property.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 1:10 pm:
Jerry-
That’s not what Wolford held. It held the state of Hawaii couldn’t declare all private property open to the public, like shops and restaurants, were prohibited without permission. It held Hawaii has to have a default like we do here in Illinois where business owners have to post if firearms are prohibited.
In the case of Hawaii it is entirely possible, even likely that the majority of businesses will post said signs.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 1:58 pm:
There is no circuit split on the issue. All the Appellate courts in “bad” districts have found a way to rationalize the bans even under Bruen
So this bodes bad for those decisions and its gonna be 6-3 our way pica is now on life support
- Matt B - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 2:18 pm:
PICA was passed after the Bruen decision. At that point the writing was already on the wall that categorical semi auto bans were unconstitutional and the state decided to go ahead with it anyway and taunted opponents of the law “see you in court”. Well that day is rapidly coming and they aren’t going to like the decision coming down.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 2:27 pm:
= the state decided to go ahead with it anyway and taunted opponents of the law “see you in court”-
Agreed - if the Gun Violence reduction committee that JB put together included even some pro-gun voices, then the PICA legislation would not have been so stringent. But look at all the landmark pro-2A cases; Heller, McDonald, Bruen- they all come from states with Dem supermajorities that pass draconian gun laws.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 2:28 pm:
Given the rulings by this MAGA SCOTUS. They’ll move heaven and earth to overturn assault weapons bans to allow more children to be killed by these weapons of WAR.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 2:55 pm:
It’s a wonder 2A supporters survived the dark years of 1994 to 2004 without their TEC-9s and Kalishnikovs.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:01 pm:
==pass draconian gun laws.==
Yeah, being against weapons used in mass shootings is such a draconian stance to take.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:02 pm:
== legislation would not have been so stringent==
I’m looking for an any instance where the gun groups support any sort of laws related to firearms. As far as I can tell it’s nothing short of the wild west for those folks.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:06 pm:
Well Jacko, you seem to fail gun law 101. The ‘94 ban a limited number of features on guns. no collapsible stocks, flash hiders and a few other things. you could still go to a gun shop and buy and AR-15. the Tec-9 went to the AB-9 “After Ban” and could still be bought Kalashnikovs added thumbhole stocks and were readily available. There was a ban on features not gun. And then it went away. So not the same as a ban on all new sales or possession and all the modern bans are gun bans due to the gun grabbers not liking all the compliant work arounds people did, hens the single feature test and what not.
Cry harder
- Jerry - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:43 pm:
Nothing in 2A about AK-47s.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:51 pm:
Jerry — reading is fundamental:
“First, does the law apply to “the people” — which is to say, to “all members of the political community”? … Second, does it concern any form of “Arms,” i.e., any weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes? … Third, does the law place any restrictions on either the “keep[ing]” (i.e., possession) or the “bear[ing]” (i.e., carrying) of arms?” Wolford v Perez 6/25/26
still Confused?
- Think Again - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:55 pm:
=Yeah, being against weapons used in mass shootings is such a draconian stance to take=
Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 170 different handguns being used in 120 incidents between 1982 and March 2026.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 3:59 pm:
==all the compliant work arounds people did==
Yeah, because heaven forbid you people can’t have your guns that fire hundreds of rounds a minute. I mean, its your constitutional right to mass murder people, right?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 4:13 pm:
=== gun law 101 ===
It’s whatever legal fiction the current judges use to justify their position. The text of the 2nd amendment starts with the phrase “well regulated militia”. The closing phrase is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Textualism means you read the words on the paper. There are no spurious phrases. Gun rights are placed within the context of well regulated milita. Rightwing gun lovers have created a fictional argument to let people go crazy with all kinds of guns. The fiction isn’t even consistent. It changes as context and the justices change.
What is constant is that people and most notably kids are being killed. Weapons of this war make this easier and more effective. That’s insane.
- FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 4:21 pm:
—I’m looking for an any instance where the gun groups support any sort of laws related to firearms. As far as I can tell it’s nothing short of the wild west for those folks.——
Easy enough. Violent felons, those adjudicated as mentally deficient, illegal aliens and not firing with city limits without cause. Generally things of that nature are things the majority of us support.
— I mean, its your constitutional right to mass murder people, right?—
Umm, no. Just because someone would own a semi automatic or even an automatic firearm does not mean they plan mass murder.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 4:22 pm:
@Think Again
Don’t be daft. You know exactly the types of shootings I’m referring to (think Highland Park). Nice attempt to be cute though.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 4:24 pm:
==would own a semi automatic or even an automatic firearm==
There’s absolutely NO reason you need either of those.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 4:27 pm:
there’s going to be more and more of the take of those supporting laws are racist cause they keep guns out of the hands of Black people. and then those same conservatives are screaming about violence and see your laws did not do anything to stop the violence. while they also talk about how to get parts through the mail that can make or convert things to a bigger bang. how much do they need to defend themselves?
- Shytown - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 4:33 pm:
The smugness of the pro-gun at all costs folks is a sad reminder that data and lives don’t matter. More kids killed by gun violence than anything else in this country - but my guns! For women, firearms are involved in the top two of four killers of women (outside of health related death) - but my guns! When the national assault weapons ban was in place, mass shootings went down. After the ban expired, they went up. This ain’t hard folks. It’s the guns.
- FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 5:07 pm:
–There’s absolutely NO reason you need either of those.–
No one has a reason to use drugs or alcohol, I am not telling them they can’t. That is their pursuit, and if they are not harming others I am not calling a foul.
If I am and others are not doing harm give the same respect.
- Notorious JMB - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 5:08 pm:
On Saturday June 20, 510 shooters shot over 100,000 rounds at the state trap shoot. Not one person was hurt or killed. The same weekend 8 people were killed and almost 40 were wounded in Chicago shootings. It’s not the guns that are the problem, it’s the people using them.
https://www.wbez.org/in-the-loop-with-sasha-ann-simons/2026/06/23/after-deadly-weekend-chicago-leaders-call-for-new-city-department-to-tackle-problem
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 5:53 pm:
=== No one has a reason to use drugs or alcohol, I am not telling them they can’t. That is their pursuit, and if they are not harming others I am not calling a foul. ===
LOL. Try coming up with a better analogy. This one is seriously flawed. Alcohol and drugs are heavily regulated. Can I put you down for regulating guns?
- thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Jun 30, 26 @ 8:06 pm:
This is great news, and soon Illinois and other state’s bans will be overturned as unconstitutional. Time to stop blaming the law-abiding for the acts of criminals. They are simply rifles, not fully-automatic “weapons of war”, no matter how “bad” or “military” they look.