Category: Constitution
Tags: Second Amendment, Supreme Court, Cook County, Dudley Brown
The Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault weapons that asks whether AR-15-style rifles fall within the Second Amendment’s protection of “arms.”
The case arrives after two federal court decisions applied Second Amendment protections beyond firearms. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated federal limits on interstate commerce involving switchblade knives, while a judge in the Western District of New York struck down New York restrictions on personal body armor.
Both courts concluded that the items qualify as constitutionally protected arms. The Fifth Circuit found that switchblades are commonly used arms, while the New York court rejected the state’s position that body armor should be treated only as a tactical firearm accessory. The New York judge also found no sufficiently comparable historical tradition for barring civilians from purchasing body armor.
Heller and Bruen Standards
The dispute turns on standards established in two major Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the court recognized an individual right to keep firearms for lawful uses including self-defense. The ruling also distinguished weapons in common lawful use from “dangerous and unusual” weapons that may be restricted.
Heller described arms as including offensive weapons as well as defensive armor. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court directed judges to examine the Second Amendment’s text and the nation’s historical tradition when assessing firearm restrictions.
George Lyon said the governments defending the switchblade and body-armor restrictions did not identify sufficiently similar historical laws. “Once what you want to do is shown to come within the text of the Second Amendment, the presumption is that the regulation is unconstitutional,” Lyon said.
Seventh Circuit Ruling at Issue
The Seventh Circuit previously concluded that AR-15-style rifles were comparable to machine guns and therefore outside the category of protected arms. The Supreme Court’s decision in Viramontes could determine whether that analysis conforms with Heller and Bruen.
Dudley Brown’s organization filed an amicus brief in the case. Brown said the switchblade and body-armor disputes will be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Viramontes.
The court’s treatment of AR-15-style rifles could also bear on disputes involving ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor and other defensive equipment.
By The Republic Standard News Staff