Gun-rights lawyers urge Supreme Court to reject 7th Circuit’s military-vs-civilian weapon split
Solicitor General D. John Sauer and allied groups have filed briefs asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 7th Circuit’s ruling that AR-15-style rifles are “military-grade” and therefore outside the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed Cook County’s prohibition on AR-15-style rifles, reasoning that such firearms fall on the “military” side of a civilian-military distinction. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in a brief to the Supreme Court, contends that this distinction contradicts the Second Amendment’s original intent, which linked the right to bear arms with a well-regulated militia and the ability to resist tyranny.
He references the Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and United States v. Miller to argue that weapons useful for militia service are protected. Supporting briefs from the Cato Institute, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the Second Amendment Institute echo this view, highlighting the AR-15’s historical alignment with reserve-militia arms and its prevalence in lawful self-defense. The Supreme Court will hear this challenge together with Grant v. Higgins, another case involving a state ban on “assault weapons” that includes AR-15s. The outcome could reshape the legal landscape for gun regulations nationwide.
Why it matters
The Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine which firearms are protected by the Second Amendment and affect gun-control laws across the United States.
In this story
