He Wanted a Smith and Wesson AR-15. Now He Wants Out of the Case, and Cook County Wants the Whole Thing Dismissed.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — Cook County, Illinois, told the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, Nov. 5, that the AR-15 case the justices agreed to decide may no longer have a plaintiff who can bring it. In a Suggestion of Mootness filed in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, the county argues that if lead petitioner Cutberto Viramontes is allowed to drop out, the Court should dismiss the case as moot, meaning there is no live dispute left to decide, or as “improvidently granted,” which is the Court’s way of saying it should not have taken the case in the first place.

Yesterday I covered New Jersey’s AR-15 and Magazine Bans Stay in Effect While Supreme Court Weighs Viramontes, where both sides of New Jersey’s rifle and magazine case asked the justices to hold that appeal until Viramontes and Grant v. Higgins are decided. Now the county whose ordinance sits at the center of Viramontes is asking to have the case dismissed before the justices answer the AR-15 question in it. The Court agreed to hear the case on June 30, and the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the petitioners, has already pushed back, as reported by The Daily Caller.

Here is what set this off. On Oct. 29, 2026, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Viramontes from the case. According to the county, he gave no reason for the request and filed no declaration, a sworn statement, showing the gun rights groups in the case still have standing. Standing is the constitutional requirement that whoever brings a case has a real, personal stake in how it comes out. The county says that without Viramontes, “it is doubtful that any petitioner has Article III standing to litigate the question presented.”

Read Cook County’s full Suggestion of Mootness (PDF)

Viramontes was the cleanest fit for the case. In district court, he said he was a Cook County resident who wanted “to own a Smith and Wesson Military & Police AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle.” The question the justices agreed to answer is “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” The county concedes Viramontes had standing to press that appeal. If he is dismissed, it says, he is no longer a petitioner before the Court.

That leaves Christopher Khaya, the other individual petitioner. The county goes after him on two fronts.

First, the rifle. Khaya has said he wants an IMI Galil semiautomatic rifle, not an AR-15. According to the filing, the petitioners told the district court the Galil “is not an AR-15 style rifle but is largely based on the AK-47 design.” The county ordinance covers AK-47-style weapons. But the Court limited its review to “AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” It did not take up the broader argument that the ordinance is facially invalid, meaning unconstitutional across the board. So, the county argues, Khaya has no personal stake in the question the Court took.

The county adds that the record has no facts on whether the Galil operates like an AR-15 or is in common use. For rarity, it points to a collector’s sale listing saying only about 400 of one Galil model were imported during the 1980s. A single collectible variant is thin support for a claim about a rifle platform. The county words it carefully itself, saying only that “at least some variants” are extremely rare in the United States.

Second, the purpose. Khaya told the district court he was “most likely to use [the IMI Galil] at the range, to be honest.” He said he would use it for self-defense only if his handgun and his other permitted semiautomatic rifle were out of commission. The county calls it speculative that he would ever use the rifle “for the core lawful purpose of self-defense,” quoting Heller.

I read that differently. Heller calls self-defense the core lawful purpose. Core does not mean only. Range time is how a responsible owner builds the skill and the mindset to run a rifle well if the day ever comes. Being candid about where he shoots it most should not write him out of the case.

Then the groups. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation are petitioners too. A membership group has standing only if it identifies at least one member who has been or will be harmed. According to the county, the groups identified just two members in all of Cook County: Viramontes and Khaya. The county argues Khaya does not qualify, and Viramontes cannot carry the groups if he leaves.

The county says the “most natural inference” from his barebones motion is that his circumstances have changed “in some significant fashion.” If the petitioners dispute that, it asks the Court to require Viramontes to file a declaration that he still qualifies the groups for standing.

The county’s own filing concedes the AR-15 question survives all of this. In a footnote, it says the standing issue “would not prevent the Court from deciding the question presented given that Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, was consolidated with this matter.” Consolidated means the Court is hearing the two cases together. If Viramontes is dismissed, the justices still answer the question. Cook County’s ordinance just would not be the law in front of them when they do.

SAF says the case should go forward anyway. In its post on X, the group said: “There is every reason that this case should continue, both on behalf of the remaining individual plaintiff, as well as on behalf of SAF’s members. Furthermore, the Second Amendment Foundation has a second case, Grant v. Higgins, which was granted cert on this exact issue. This issue will be addressed by the Supreme Court.” Granted cert means the Court agreed to hear it.

More from USA Carry:

• New Jersey’s AR-15 and Magazine Bans Stay in Effect While Supreme Court Weighs Viramontes – USA Carry
• Indiana Supreme Court Ends 26-Year Lawsuit Against Firearm Manufacturers
• Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Glock All Told a Court the Same Thing About California’s Microstamping Rule
• James Reeves Subpoenaed for Being a Guntuber: Highland Park Lawsuit Against Smith & Wesson Reaches Into Firearms Media and Defines Unpaid Reviews as ‘Advertising’
• Bend Father With a Concealed Carry Permit Followed a 16-Year-Old Shooter Into His Daughters’ Elementary School and Killed Him Before Police Arrived; Wyden Answers With Call for ‘Common Sense Gun Laws’

The Court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss Viramontes or on the county’s suggestion. According to the county, his motion offered no reason for leaving.

I will continue tracking Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins as the Supreme Court decides whether Viramontes stays on its docket.

Read the original story: He Wanted a Smith and Wesson AR-15. Now He Wants Out of the Case, and Cook County Wants the Whole Thing Dismissed.