Cook County Defends AR-15 Ban by Emphasizing Historical Limits on Dangerous Weapons

Ahead of the Supreme Court’s December 2 review of assault-weapon bans in Connecticut and Cook County, the two jurisdictions submitted briefs arguing that the “common-use” criterion is irrelevant to the constitutionality of their AR-15 restrictions. They maintain that the bans target “exceptionally lethal” firearms, a category that historically justified regulation of weapons like Bowie knives and trap guns. Citing the Bruen decision, they assert that the second-step historical analysis permits bans on weapons deemed unusually dangerous, even if they are widely owned.

The briefs contend that AR-15s are offensive war-type weapons not customarily used for self-defense, and that the bans serve a legitimate public-safety purpose. Opponents point out that the features regulated by assault-weapon laws do not affect a rifle’s core operation and that many owners use AR-15s for self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The filings also argue that the Second Amendment’s protection of “lawful purposes” does not automatically shield commonly owned firearms from regulation. The Court will have to decide whether historical tradition can outweigh the modern prevalence of these rifles.