Maryland AG Joins 18 Other Attorneys General Urging Supreme Court to Uphold AR-15 Bans in Cook County and Connecticut Ahead of Dec. 2 Arguments

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BALTIMORE, MD — Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a multistate amicus brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 28, 2026, defending the AR-15 bans at the center of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The brief was filed on behalf of Massachusetts, New Jersey, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia. It asks the justices to side with Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut in two consolidated cases set for oral argument on Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2026.

An amicus brief, from the Latin for “friend of the court,” is filed by someone who is not a party to a case but wants the justices to weigh their arguments anyway. The question the Court agreed to answer is printed on the first page: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” According to a release from Brown’s office, an opinion is expected before the current term ends in the summer of 2027.

“Assault weapons have been used in many of our country’s deadliest mass shootings,” Brown said. “Our attorneys successfully defended Maryland’s assault weapons ban in federal court. With this brief, we are urging the Supreme Court to apply that same reasoning nationwide and recognize every state’s authority to keep these dangerous weapons off our streets.”

Brown is not asking the Court to leave Maryland alone. He is asking it to take Maryland’s reasoning national.

Both cases belong to the Second Amendment Foundation. According to SAF’s announcement, Viramontes was originally filed in 2021 and challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern firearms, which SAF calls the precursor to Illinois’ nearly identical statewide ban. Grant challenges Connecticut’s ban on semi-automatic rifles, both by name and by feature set. The Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens join SAF in Viramontes. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens join it in Grant. The cases reached the Supreme Court from the Seventh and Second Circuits.

The states’ argument rests on what the brief calls a historical tradition allowing states to regulate “Unusually Dangerous Weapons That Contribute Disproportionately to a Public Safety Problem.” That is their pitch under the historical-tradition test the Court now applies to Second Amendment cases. Brown’s office says AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles were designed for military combat and are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings in the United States. The release also cites the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec. 14, 2012, where an attacker armed with an AR-15-style rifle murdered 20 children and six educators. Months later, Connecticut updated its 1993 ban.

The second half of the brief goes after what the states call the petitioners’ “circulation-based test.” In plain terms, that is the argument that a rifle owned by huge numbers of law-abiding Americans is in common use and therefore protected. The states say that test “Cannot Be Squared With Historical Tradition or Modern Reality.” That is the real fight. If the states win that point, the number of Americans who own a rifle stops mattering, and a government’s judgment about which guns are “unusually dangerous” starts deciding what you can keep.

SAF is not budging. “Categorical bans on the most commonly owned rifles in America violate the Second Amendment, full stop,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb pointed to Supreme Court caselaw protecting arms in “common use” and to “a rifle owned by more than 30 million law-abiding citizens.” SAF says it is preparing its reply.

An amicus brief is an argument, not a ruling. The Court has decided nothing yet, and this filing does not change the law in Maryland or any other state.

More from USA Carry:

• Valid D.C. Permit, Two Maryland Convictions Anyway: Eight 2A Groups Urging Maryland’s Highest Court to Hear Duvall Carry Case
• DOJ Joins Fight Against Hawaii Gun Law in Supreme Court Showdown
• Lancaster County Judge Joins Four Other Courts and Pauses GOA’s Challenge to Virginia’s “Assault Firearm” Ban
• 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.

Maryland gun owners already live under the ban Brown says his office defended. Anyone who carries in the state should know where the lines are, and my Maryland concealed carry laws and permit information page lays out the current rules. A serious carry mindset includes knowing which of your firearms are legal where you live and where you travel. Depending on how the justices rule next summer, that answer could change for gun owners in a lot of states at once.

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: Maryland AG Joins 18 Other Attorneys General Urging Supreme Court to Uphold AR-15 Bans in Cook County and Connecticut Ahead of Dec. 2 Arguments