Delaware Gov. Meyer Backs Governors’ Supreme Court Brief Defending Illinois and Connecticut AR-15 Bans Five Weeks Before Oral Arguments

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WILMINGTON, DE — Delaware Gov. Meyer is taking his fight over gun laws to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a Wednesday announcement on the State of Delaware’s official news site headlined “Governor Meyer Takes Fight to Defend Gun Safety Laws to The U.S. Supreme Court.” Delaware is not a party to any case. The vehicle is an amicus brief, a friend-of-the-court filing from people who are not parties but want the justices to hear their view. This one is from the Governors Safer Communities Initiative, and the state posted the full brief on its news site.

The brief is filed in two cases the Court has agreed to hear together. Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, comes up from the Seventh Circuit. Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, comes up from the Second Circuit. Both are challenges brought by the Second Amendment Foundation. According to SAF, Viramontes was filed in 2021 against Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern firearms, which SAF calls the precursor to Illinois’ nearly identical statewide ban. Grant targets Connecticut’s ban on semi-automatic rifles, both by name and by feature set. SAF says both bans cover the AR-15. The Court agreed this summer to hear the cases, and oral arguments are set for Wednesday, Dec. 2.

The governors’ brief is filed “in support of respondents.” In Supreme Court terms, the respondents are the governments defending the bans: Cook County and Connecticut officials, including Ronnell Higgins, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The petitioners are the gun owners and groups challenging the bans. SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, and in Grant by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.

The brief’s argument comes in two parts. The first says the coalition’s members “have directly confronted the human costs and operational consequences of assault-weapon violence.” It argues that member governors “have personally experienced the human toll of assault-weapon violence in their own states” and that mass shootings “impose severe, lasting operational burdens” on their jurisdictions. The second part argues that these rifles “make mass shootings more lethal,” that they are “distinctively dangerous,” and that “safety laws regulating their use save lives.” It closes with a section on the “range of firearm measures” states have adopted.

Look at those headings. Every one is about consequences: casualties, strain on state resources, lethality, whether the laws work. Those are policy arguments, the kind a legislature weighs when it writes a law. The brief does cite the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, along with appeals court cases including Bianchi v. Brown from the Fourth Circuit, Kolbe v. Hogan, Duncan v. Bonta from the Ninth Circuit, Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island from the First Circuit, and the Second Circuit’s National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont. It also cites Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, a 2023 District of Delaware decision in a challenge to Delaware’s own gun laws.

SAF’s position is that the Court has already settled how laws like these should be judged. “Categorical bans on the most commonly owned rifles in America violate the Second Amendment, full stop,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Supreme Court has already laid out a clear method of analysis for statutes like these,” he added. SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb put the common-use point directly: “One might think Supreme Court caselaw explaining that arms in ‘common use’ are protected by the Second Amendment, and bans on a rifle owned by more than 30 million law-abiding citizens would be incompatible, yet here we are.”

For Delaware gun owners, that is the real stake behind the governor’s announcement. Whatever rule the Supreme Court sets in Viramontes and Grant becomes the rule lower courts apply to similar laws everywhere, Delaware included. Knowing the law where you live is part of a serious carry mindset, and my page on Delaware concealed carry laws and permit information covers where things stand in the First State today.

More from USA Carry:

• Connecticut Tells the Supreme Court AR-15s Are ‘Weapons of War’ in Brief Defending Its Ban Ahead of December 2 Arguments
• New Jersey Concealed Carry Decision Heading to Debate in Supreme Court
• Connecticut Lawyer Asks Supreme Court to Declare Part of the Second Amendment ‘Extinct’ So the State Can Keep Its AR-15 Ban
• Cook County Tells the Supreme Court AR-15s Are ‘Not in Common Use’ While Gun Groups Count 20 to 40 Million of Them
• Active-Duty Navy Sailor Serving 20 Years Over Demilled Parts and Replicas as SAF Pushes Supreme Court for Review

None of this is decided. An amicus brief is advocacy from one side, the Court has not ruled, and SAF says it will answer the opposition in its reply before arguments.

I will continue tracking Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins through the Dec. 2 oral arguments and the Court’s decision.

Read the original story: Delaware Gov. Meyer Backs Governors’ Supreme Court Brief Defending Illinois and Connecticut AR-15 Bans Five Weeks Before Oral Arguments