DOJ tells the Supreme Court AR-15 bans are unconstitutional

The Department of Justice has told the Supreme Court that a categorical ban on AR-15 rifles violates the Second Amendment. Jared Yanis calls the brief some of the strongest pro-gun language ever to come from the federal government itself.

The short version

The amicus brief was filed in the two AR-15 cases before the Court: Viramontes v. Cook County, from Illinois, and Grant v. Rovella, from Connecticut. Yanis says DOJ lays out a simple chain: an AR-15 is an "arm," it is in common use by law-abiding Americans, and there is no historical tradition of banning a commonly owned firearm. The brief leans on Heller and Bruen and rejects lower-court reasoning that a rifle can lose protection because it looks military or lawmakers consider it too dangerous.

The Solicitor General asks the Court to reverse both appeals-court rulings and send the cases back. Oral argument is set for December 2nd, and Yanis says he will cover the audio live.

Key points

• Common use: Sources cited in the brief say at least 16 million Americans own AR-15s and at least 28 million AR-style rifles are in circulation.
• Bevis rebuked: DOJ rejects the Seventh Circuit's reasoning that AR-15s may fall outside the Second Amendment because of their supposed military character.
• Self-defense: The brief cites surveys in which about 60 to 65 percent of owners name self-defense as a major reason for owning an AR-style rifle.
• FBI numbers: Of 13,674 homicides in 2025, the brief says about 38 percent involved handguns and about 3 percent rifles of any kind.
• "Assault weapon": It cites Justice Clarence Thomas's observation that the term did not exist in firearms vocabulary before 1989.

Bottom line

If the Court adopts the common-use framework DOJ is pressing, the effect would reach every state with an AR-15 ban, not just Illinois and Connecticut. Watch the December 2nd argument for how the justices respond.

Source: Jared Yanis