Connecticut Tells the Supreme Court AR-15s Are ‘Weapons of War’ in Brief Defending Its Ban Ahead of December 2 Arguments

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — Connecticut’s attorney general announced on Facebook that the office has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Grant v. Higgins, defending the state’s post-Sandy Hook AR-15 ban. The post calls the law “lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported” and says the office is “going to give them everything we’ve got to keep these weapons of war off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our families.”

The justices agreed June 30 to take the case alongside Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to a Cook County, Illinois rifle ban, consolidated the two, and set oral argument for the morning of December 2, as reported by Seattle Red. Lower courts upheld both bans, which is the point Connecticut leans on: the attorney general’s post notes that both the district court and the appellate court found the law constitutional.

The heart of the state’s pitch is in one sentence of that post. “The facts and the law all point to an undeniable conclusion,” the office writes, that “AR-15s are unusually dangerous and excessively lethal,” and that the ban “is consistent with our nation’s long history of regulating such weapons.” I disagree with every clause of that, and so does the side of the bar that has been fighting these bans for years. The Second Amendment Foundation’s case page for its Washington challenge puts the counter-argument plainly: the rifles targeted by these bans are commonly possessed throughout the United States for lawful purposes, they are not dangerous and unusual, and the government cannot ban them simply because it does not like features such as a pistol grip, telescoping stock, flash suppressor, or threaded barrel. “Unusually dangerous” is a label a state attaches to a rifle. “Common use” is a fact about what Americans actually own, and that is the question the Court said it would answer.

Connecticut is not the only state with skin in this game. Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed its own HB 1240 on April 25, 2023, making it unlawful to manufacture, import, distribute, sell, or offer to sell the semiautomatic rifles the state categorized as assault weapons, according to SAF. The foundation filed suit moments after the signing, along with another civil rights organization, a firearms retailer, and three individuals. That case, Hartford v. Ferguson, is sitting in the Western District of Washington, and SAF’s docket shows a July 16, 2026 notice requiring a status report within two weeks of a Supreme Court decision in Viramontes and Grant. Seattle Red notes that Washington is not a party to either case and that its law does not ban possession, so owners who had the rifles before the law took effect kept them. The sales ban rests on the same legal theory the justices will test on December 2.

Part of a serious mindset is knowing exactly where the law stands wherever you live or travel, the same reason I keep my concealed carry reciprocity maps current, and right now a Washington gun owner cannot buy the rifle that is the single most litigated firearm in the country while a Connecticut attorney general argues to the Supreme Court that it should stay that way.

More from USA Carry:

• New Jersey Concealed Carry Decision Heading to Debate in Supreme Court
• Active-Duty Navy Sailor Serving 20 Years Over Demilled Parts and Replicas as SAF Pushes Supreme Court for Review
• Maryland Stretched ‘Sensitive Place’ Across Public Life. Now SAF, FPC and Maryland Shall Issue Have Filed Their Last Brief Before the Court Decides Whether to Step In.
• Montana, 24 States, SAF and NRA File Briefs Urging Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Waiting Period
• With the Tax Stamp Dead, FPC Tells Federal Court the NFA’s Gun Registry Has to Die With It

One limit on the December argument: per Seattle Red, the Court agreed to hear Grant only on the rifle question presented in Viramontes, so magazine bans are on a separate track and are not before the justices in these cases. And to be clear, a brief is a brief. The Court has not ruled, and the challengers will file their own answer to Connecticut’s framing.

I will continue tracking Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County through the December 2 argument, and Hartford v. Ferguson as it waits on the result.

Legislative data provided by LegiScan (CC BY 4.0, legiscan.com).

Read the original story: Connecticut Tells the Supreme Court AR-15s Are ‘Weapons of War’ in Brief Defending Its Ban Ahead of December 2 Arguments