The cases of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins are, in essence, one and the same. They challenge assault weapon bans in Illinois and Connecticut, respectively, and they’re perhaps set to be one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of our lifetimes. Yes, bigger than Bruen, Heller, or McDonald.
I don’t say that lightly.
But they matter. They matter so much that pro-gun groups are dropping their amicus briefs. We’ve noted a few already, but I’ve got two more for you today.
First, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
From a statement sent to Bearing Arms:
“In our brief,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we take a scholarly journey through the history of arms regulation; not just firearms, but other arms including swords, knives and other lawful arms. Nowhere in history is there any justification for outright bans of any arms, only the regulation of their misuse. As we explain, AR-15-style rifles serve recognized lawful purposes for home and personal defense, hunting, target shooting, organized competition and pest and predator control.”
Studies estimate that firearms labeled “assault weapons” account for well under one percent of violent crimes, the brief says, while such firearms are “commonly possessed safeguards used for lawful purposes—not instruments outside lawful use and not identified with violent criminality.”
“It is gratifying to see that CCRKBA is in very good company with our historical amicus brief,” Gottlieb said. “We are taking sides with 27 state attorneys general, with the U.S. Department of Justice, with law enforcement groups and literally ever other major firearms civil rights organization in the country. We all know what is at stake when the Court hears oral arguments in December, and the Citizens Committee is proud to stand in support of the Constitution and we are confident the Second Amendment will prevail.”
A similar stat about these weapons being used in one percent of crimes was echoed in a statement by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.
It was followed by this:
“AR15s and other modern sporting rifles are undisputably in common use for all manner of lawful purposes by the American people and, therefore, cannot be banned,” said JPFO Projects Director, James Jones. “Anti-liberty groups who want to abolish the Second Amendment and the right it protects have tried for years to ban one class of firearm after another providing nothing but false rhetoric and misguided emotion as evidence to justify the unjust prohibitions. We’re confident the Supreme Court will see through their schemes and will rely on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.”
Jones is 100 percent correct, for the record.
The term “lawful purposes” isn’t limited to self-defense use. It means any lawful purpose, from shooting three-gun competitions to a day at the range to even sitting there and looking at it because it looks dope. Those are all perfectly legal practices, and the AR-15 fits in that niche, too.
Because of that, it cannot be lawfully banned.
Plus, it’s not used in crime that often, and when it is, there’s no evidence that the criminal who used it wouldn’t have just opted for another firearm had the evil “assault weapon” been unavailable.
Gottlieb is also correct in that there is no historical justification for the complete prohibition of a particular type of firearm. It just doesn’t exist, and while the anti-gun zealots will undoubtedly try to manipulate laws about things like Bowie knives to justify the bans, it just shouldn’t fly. They’re different and from a different era.
Viramontes is going to be one of the biggest decisions of our lifetime, whether the anti-gunners like it or not.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
