60 members of Congress urge Supreme Court to protect AR-15s

Sixty members of Congress have told the Supreme Court that AR-15s cannot lose Second Amendment protection just because they resemble military rifles. According to Jared Yanis, their brief turns the "too military" reasoning behind rifle bans on its head.

The short version

The amicus brief, filed with the American Center for Law and Justice, supports the challengers in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Rovella, the two AR-15 ban cases the Second Amendment Foundation brought to the Court. Yanis credits Representative Andrew Clyde with leading the effort.

The members argue that lower courts have the Second Amendment backwards. Courts such as the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe v. Hogan and the Seventh Circuit in Bevis treated a rifle's similarity to military arms as a reason to deny protection. The brief says history points the other way: at the founding, ordinary citizens were expected to own arms useful for militia service, so military usefulness is a sign a weapon is protected, not a disqualifier.

Key points

• Who signed: Sixty members of Congress, led by Rep. Andrew Clyde and joined by the American Center for Law and Justice.
• Militia Act of 1792: The brief points to the law requiring able-bodied men to supply their own musket or rifle, ammunition and equipment.
• Miller and Heller: It argues both precedents point toward protecting arms in common use, not excluding those suited to militia service.
• Ownership: It cites National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates of more than 32 million modern sporting rifles in civilian hands.
• The ask: Reverse the lower-court rulings that upheld the bans.

Bottom line

If the Court accepts this reading, one of the main justifications lower courts have used to uphold rifle bans would fall away. For anyone who owns a modern sporting rifle, it is one of the more consequential briefs filed in these cases.

Source: Jared Yanis