Understanding the Case: What Viramontes Could Clarify About the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment community is excited that the Supreme Court will soon decide whether so-called “assault weapon” bans are constitutional, taking up an issue that could affect gun laws well beyond the specific rifles at the center of the case.

SAF is particularly invested in the outcome because both cases granted review — Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins — are cases in which the organization is a plaintiff.

The question presented, which the Court will answer, is: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.”

Depending on how the Supreme Court answers it, the reasoning could influence legal disputes involving firearm features, magazines, suppressors and other arms regulated by state and federal law.

What Is Viramontes v. Cook County?

At its core, Viramontes challenges restrictions on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles.

These bans exist in roughly 10 states and prevent millions of Americans from owning AR-15s and similar rifles. Cook County, Illinois, bans certain firearms by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s, while also restricting semi-automatic rifles based on particular characteristics.

For example, Cook County bans certain semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting magazines holding more than 10 rounds if they have features such as a pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, muzzle brake, or compensator.

The extent to which the Supreme Court’s analysis goes into the constitutionality of specific “features” is thus critical. The case is not necessarily only about whether an AR-15 can be banned by name. If the Supreme Court does not rule that some common features are protected as well, any ruling will be easy for states to continue to circumvent.

What Does the Second Amendment Mean by ‘Arms’?

One of the most important questions underlying Viramontes is what qualifies as an “arm” for Second Amendment purposes.

The Supreme Court recently addressed that issue in Wolford v. Lopez, explaining that “arms” are “implements used for offense and defense.”

Some courts had previously concluded that firearms such as the AR-15 were not protected “arms” because they were viewed as more useful for military purposes than for personal self-defense. After Wolford, that line of argument appears to be extinct.

If AR-15s and similar rifles fall within the constitutional meaning of “arms,” courts must then consider what protections apply to their possession.

Why Firearm Features Could Matter

The extent to which the Supreme Court addresses specific firearm features may be one of the most consequential parts of Viramontes.

A ruling focused only on flat bans of AR-15s and similar rifles may leave open questions about laws written around characteristics rather than specific models. Many existing laws are features-based.

If the Court addresses whether commonly regulated features are themselves protected, the ruling could provide considerably more guidance to lower courts. The petition in Viramontes raised that issue directly, giving the Court an opportunity to consider it.

What About Magazine Restrictions?

Other Second Amendment cases remain unresolved.

In granting review of the AR-15 question, the Supreme Court did not, at least for now, take up the related magazine question.

Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington involve state-level bans on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those cases have not yet been granted or denied.

How the Court ultimately analyzes Viramontes could affect how those cases and similar challenges are considered going forward.

Could the Decision Affect Suppressors?

Suppressors present another unresolved question.

The Fifth Circuit recently ruled in U.S. v. Comeaux that suppressors are “arms” under the Second Amendment.

The government argued that suppressors should not qualify because they are not necessary to the functioning of a firearm. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument, concluding that an item “need not be necessary for a firearm’s functioning but instead must only ‘facilitate armed self-defense.’”

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling creates a split with other courts, meaning the Supreme Court may need to take up the issue, particularly as some states like California and New York continue to maintain total bans on suppressors. Its discussion in Viramontes of what is and is not an “arm” could become relevant to future litigation.

Other Gun Laws Could Be Affected

Other firearm regulations may also be affected by the Court’s reasoning.

Cases involving California’s handgun roster present a different version of the broader question. Rather than prohibiting firearms because of certain features, California requires specific features, including chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms, before certain handguns can be sold.

The Supreme Court’s analysis of what constitutes a protected arm, and how far governments may go in regulating the characteristics of those arms, could therefore reach beyond AR-15 bans.

What Viramontes May Not Resolve

Even a significant decision in Viramontes is unlikely to answer every Second Amendment question currently moving through the courts. Magazine restrictions, suppressor bans, handgun regulations and future licensing requirements all present separate legal questions.

Another issue will be how states respond if the Court strikes down or limits existing rifle bans.

Following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, some states replaced or supplemented earlier carry restrictions with extensive licensing and training requirements. Similar tactics could be used to dissuade people from exercising their right to own lAR-15s and similar rifles.

Why This Case Matters

The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear two SAF “assault weapons” ban cases is monumental.

The Court will directly consider whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. But the reasoning it uses could matter well beyond that single question.

Its treatment of what qualifies as an “arm,” how firearm features should be evaluated and how broadly constitutional protections apply will have ripple effects on Second Amendment infringements nationwide.

SAF remains cautiously optimistic that the right to keep and bear arms will be strengthened by the Court’s eventual ruling, and we look forward to arguing our case before the highest court in the land.

 

Editor’s Note: This article was provided by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as part of its content partnership with USCCA. It was written and distributed by SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros.