Precise Shooters
Videos

Supreme Court brief: rifle bans really target the magazine

October 15, 2026

A new friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court's two AR-15 cases argues that much of the case for "assault weapon" bans is really an argument about magazines. Jared Yanis breaks down the filing from criminologist Gary Kleck and the FPC Action Foundation.

The short version

The brief was filed in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Rovella, the challenges to Cook County's and Connecticut's rifle bans now before the Court. Its first argument is mechanical: an AR-15 has one standard magazine well that takes any magazine that fits, whatever its capacity. So, the brief says, defining a banned rifle by its "ability" to accept a large-capacity magazine makes no sense, and it sweeps in essentially every AR-15.

Its second argument is empirical. Kleck, a professor emeritus of criminology at Florida State University, and FPC Action Foundation say research has not shown that magazines over ten rounds make shootings more frequent or deadlier, or that bans on them reduce violence. They also challenge the "pause" theory behind magazine limits.

Key points

  • Separate issues: The brief says magazines are protected by the Second Amendment, but a challenge to a magazine ban raises different questions from a challenge to a rifle ban.
  • "Standard," not "large": It argues that magazines over ten rounds are the large majority of those in circulation and should be called standard capacity.
  • Rounds fired: It says criminal shooters rarely fire enough rounds for capacity to matter.
  • The reload "pause": It says reloading often produces no meaningful pause, and bystanders almost never use one when it happens.
  • Defenders: It argues people caught off guard by an attack often need more than ten rounds to stop it.

Bottom line

If the Court accepts the framing, rifle bans would have to stand on the rifle alone, not on fears about magazines. It is one amicus brief among many, but anyone following the AR-15 cases should watch whether the justices separate the two issues.

Source: Jared Yanis

Our Sources    Privacy Policy    Terms of Use    Contact