Cook County and Connecticut are asking the Supreme Court to uphold AR-15 bans by arguing that military usefulness, ballistic effectiveness, and public-safety concerns justify prohibiting America's most popular rifle. Their constitutional arguments could have consequences far beyond the AR-15.
Connecticut’s attorney general filed a Supreme Court brief calling AR-15s ‘weapons of war.’ Arguments are set for December 2. 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
ATF’s nationwide NFA retreat is a major victory. Mark Smith argues wider ownership could strengthen the fight against future suppressor and SBR restrictions.
Everytown for Gun Safety—the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group founded years ago by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg—is reportedly pumping at least $10 million into eight key congressional races in five states.
New Jersey wants its rifle and magazine ban defeat reconsidered after Viramontes and Grant. The petition shows why the Supreme Court’s AR-15 ruling could shape both fights.
Texas Senate candidate James Talarico says an “assault weapons” ban remains on the table, but ownership, crime, and mass-shooting data expose the weak case for banning commonly owned AR-15s.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear two AR-15 ban cases, a law professor says Heller protects only arms common in 1791. The Court’s own opinions reject that reading.
Washington spent five days widening the gap between what gun law now allows and what ATF has told dealers to do. The FFL news digest for the week of September 21, and the decisions you should not make yet.