History:
IL District Court
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judgement:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-1437/24-1437-2025-06-02.html
So now what does the Third Circuit do is the big question…
https://x.com/2AFDN/status/2071994559543005554#m
https://xcancel.com/2AFDN/status/2071994559543005554#m
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted two of SAF’s petitions for a writ certiorari in both Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the organization’s challenges to the bans on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois and Connecticut.
Originally filed in 2021, Viramontes challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern guns, which was the precursor for the nearly identical statewide ban passed by the Illinois legislature. In Grant, SAF is challenging Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles – both by name and by feature set. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, SAF presented the case to the Supreme Court for consideration.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. "The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.
…NSSF contends that review of these challenges by the Supreme Court is long overdue. NSSF was frustrated with the Court’s decision in June 2025 to deny cert in Snope v. Brown and the NSSF-funded Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island petitions challenging on Second Amendment grounds Maryland’s MSR Ban and Rhode Island’s ban on standard sized magazines, respectively. NSSF respectfully disagreed with Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s statement then that the Court should wait a “Term or two” before taking action to stop the lower courts from misapplying the Court’s holdings in Heller and Bruen, effectively denying the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding Americans living in the states that have enacted laws banning MSRs and standard capacity magazines. …
…“Connecticut’s assault weapon ban is lawful, lifesaving, and broadly supported. The gun lobby has flooded the courts in states across the country to get an assault weapons case up to this Supreme Court. We are prepared for this fight, and we are going to go in with everything we’ve got to keep these weapons of war off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our families,” said Attorney General Tong. …
Yeah this one always irks me. Either they aren’t weapons of war designed to murder large numbers of people, in which case you are a liar making a power grab, or they are and you insist the police need to be able to murder large swaths of the population. In which case you are psychopath making a power grab. Either way the answer is keep the guns.
2 Likes
2 Likes
About damn time.
1 Like
Fukin A
2027, why so long? is that correct
1 Like
It was accepted at the end of the 2026 session (i.e. this week) for the 2027 session (starts up in October). There is an assumption that they will continue to take their sweet time and once again leave anything 2a for a ruling at the end of the session, but they could drop it any time after the start of the session. 10-4 is the first day of the new session.
1 Like