Connecticut’s law banning so-called “assault weapons” is one of the most egregious in the nation. That’s why the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) and three private citizens filed the lawsuit Grant V. Rovella challenging the law.
Now, SAF has submitted a reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court suggesting that if the court follows the proper historical stage of the Bruen framework, this and other bans on common semi-automatic rifles would be declared unconstitutional.
As some background, SAF originally filed its cert petition in November last year urging the High Court to take the case and decide once and for all that AR-15-style rifles are most certainly in “common use” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
In Connecticut it is a crime to sell, transfer, or possess so-called “assault weapons” in the state. Connecticut’s law specifies some firearms by name and identifies various features to define what it believes constitutes an “assault weapon.”
As SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut pointed out, AR-15 and similar semi-auto rifles aren’t exactly rare in the United States.
“There are tens of millions rifles in circulation across America that meet Connecticut’s made-up definition of ‘assault weapon,’” Kraut said in a news release announcing the brief filing.
“Given that these firearms are no different than any other semi-automatic firearm owned by citizens for self-defense, there is no doubt these arms are in ‘common use’ and are certainly covered under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already stated that a firearm cannot be banned if it is in common use for lawful purposes, which is exactly what is happening in Connecticut and elsewhere across the country.”
In the brief, SAF argues, “Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and similar rifles, and most do so for defensive purposes…applying the correct ‘common use’ standard, and situating it at the proper historical stage of Bruen’s framework, could change the outcome of this case.”
“As this Court held almost 20 years ago, the Second Amendment protects the right to possess those arms that are ‘in common use,’” the brief states.
“Yet the decision below upheld a ban on popular semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 based on little more than the Connecticut legislature’s assessment that—contrary to the judgment of the American people—the rifles are too ‘dangerous.’ Several courts have upheld similar laws, but they have not coalesced around a consistent rationale because there is none; these laws are flatly unconstitutional under this Court’s precedents.”
Ultimately, Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, wants the Supreme Court to, once and for all, clear up the confusion caused by lower courts and strike down Connecticut’s AWB and others.
“This is SAF’s second ‘assault weapons’ ban challenge we have before the Supreme Court for consideration,” Gottlieb said. “The list of banned firearms in Connecticut—and elsewhere across the United States—make peaceable gun owners felons for simply owning certain types of arms for self-defense.
This obstruction to the Second Amendment rights of Americans cannot be allowed to stand, and we are optimistic the Court will agree to hear at least one of our lawsuits in relation to these infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.”