Plaintiffs Say Cook County Can't Redefine "Assault Weapons" to Dodge SCOTUS Review
Plaintiffs challenging Cook County's semiautomatic-rifle ban have filed a reply pushing back on the county's bid to have the Supreme Court case declared moot, arguing the county cannot define "assault weapons" one way in its ordinance and another way in its legal defense.
Snapshot
Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke argued the case is moot because lead plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes wants out, and remaining plaintiff Christopher Khaya wants an IMI Galil rather than an AR-15. The plaintiffs' reply, as reported by Bearing Arms, counters that the county's own ordinance and briefing already group AK-pattern rifles with the AR-15 as "assault weapons," undercutting Burke's new distinction.
Key points
- Question presented is broader: The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Constitution protects "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles," which plaintiffs say plainly covers an AK-pattern rifle like the Galil.
- County's own words used against it: Plaintiffs note Cook County has previously defined the AK-47 as an "AR-15 platform weapon" in its own briefing, and argue the county has waived any claim otherwise.
- New declarations filed: Khaya now says he may also want to buy an AR-15, and Cook County resident Ed Smolen states he's owned an AR-15 since 2011 but keeps it outside the county, wanting to bring it home "for lawful purposes including self-defense."
- Case survives either way: Even if Viramontes exits, the challenge to Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban tied to this case continues regardless.
Quick take
Bearing Arms' Cam Edwards argues the county's position is self-defeating, since Cook County can't credibly treat AK-pattern rifles as interchangeable with AR-15s when writing its ban but as legally distinct when trying to dodge Supreme Court review.
Read the full story: bearingarms.com